Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Standing Orders (Private Business)

Ordered,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating Private Business set out in the Schedule be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 27

line 14, leave out 'in duplicate'.
line 18, leave out 'in duplicate'.
line 64, leave out paragraph (5).

Standing Order 39.

line 10, leave out 'Energy' and insert 'National Heritage'.

Standing Order 191

line 9, leave out 'community charge' and insert 'council tax'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 4) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session, the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders by Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the

close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office,that such a declaration has been so deposited has laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business; That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY HERITAGE FOUNDATION BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day


before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 1226 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against the Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted:
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the London Underground (Green Park) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in Session 1991–92 or the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1991–92 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Regional Health Authorities

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the future size, number and role of regional health authorities.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I announced to the House last week my intention to abolish the 14 statutory regional health authorities. In advance of the necessary legislation, I propose to reduce the number of RHAs from 14 to eight by next April. These changes will help improve the management of the health service, reduce administration and overhead costs and support the continued drive towards a decentralised health service.

Mr. Marshall: When I tabled the question, I hardly expected it to be the catalyst for the change announced by the Secretary of State last week. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House how many jobs will be lost and how many extra doctors are likely to work in the national health service as a consequence of the changes? She will recognise that the regional health authorities had as part of their responsibilities the encouragement of regional centres of excellence. Will she tell the House who or what will take over that responsibility?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman should be a catalyst for change. We welcome a sinner who repents—even at a late stage—to the changes which we are introducing in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman makes some good points about the importance of safeguarding specialist centres. The management executive outposts will be working to ensure that there is a strategic role to safeguard precisely the units to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
It is not possible to make a precise estimate of the numbers of jobs that are involved. We have stated previously that the number of staff in management outposts should be reduced from 570 to 200, and we expect a reduction in the number of regions from 14 to eight over the next few months. We have to work with the NHS to make sure that the necessary tasks are performed. No one wants needless duplication or unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. At the same time, NHS management is an important function which will continue in a new and slimlined style.

Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House who will decide on the allocation of resources to the districts once the regional health authorities have been abolished?

Mrs. Bottomley: The regional director of the management executive will of course be involved in the allocation of resources to the districts, but in line with policies that have been laid down and approved by Ministers.

Mr. McCartney: In the Secretary of State's statement to the House last week, she avoided giving any details of

the future arrangements for the development of community health councils. Will she now tell the House what those arrangements will be?
Will the right hon. Lady take some time out of her busy day's shopping at Marks and Spencer to comment on a community health council's report in south London on the continuing abuse of elderly people in accident and emergency units? In some units in south London, elderly people are lying for between 15 and 29 hours because no beds have been opened. Is not that a result of the disastrous cuts that have been caused by the Government's budgetary policies?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman makes two different points. With regard to his latter point about accident and emergency centres, he will know that the patients charter has set explicit targets for the time that it should take for people to be treated. Special issues concern the development of primary care in London so that all elderly people can have the services to which they are entitled.

GP Fund Holding

Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further plans she has to spread the benefits of fund holding to other practices.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The GP fund-holding scheme has empowered family doctors to improve services for patients. We wish to see more fund holding and more fund holders and we are pursuing several arrangements, such as consortia, to fulfil our manifesto commitment to extending the benefits of fund holding to all GPs.

Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that GP fund holding is proving to be one of the great success stories of the health service? Does she agree that the best way to nail the lie that there is a two-tier service, so often put about by the Opposition, is to extend GP fund holding and the benefits thereof to all practices, including the smaller ones, as soon as possible? Will she confirm her support for consortium arrangements and the multi-fund applications that she is now receiving?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We want to extend the benefits of fund holding to all GPs. We welcome the number of groups that are forming consortia. Of the 800 fund-holding practices that are coming forward for next April, about 350 are precisely for those smaller schemes. We are looking particularly to see further development in London, where the energising effect of GP fund holding on primary care in general could play an important part.

Ms Lynne: Can the Secretary of State tell the House how she intends to fund the initiative that she announced last week whereby non-GP fund holders' patients will receive urgent treatment within six weeks? I welcome the announcement. I believe that it means that the Secretary of State has accepted that she created a two-tier health service. How does she intend to fund it?

Mrs. Bottomley: Fifty per cent. of cases are now seen within five weeks. We must make sure that those are the most urgent cases. All emergency cases are, of course, seen immediately. It is clear that GP fund holding is leading to improvements in primary care generally. GPs are funded


on a comparable basis for their patients. Any new fund holders who join the scheme will have their budgets arranged on the basis of their referral patterns this year. There is no two-tier system. We are seeing a levelling up.

Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to contact directly non-fund-holding GPs who may have some doubts and acquaint them with the facts about the advantages of fund holding? That would offset some of the misleading impressions given until recently by the British Medical Association and which continue to be given by those who seem more interested in making party political points than in pointing out the benefits to patients.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has it exactly right. There is no more effective advocate for GP fund holding than the fund holders themselves. GP fund holding is all about empowering the general practitioners. The GP is the most effective advocate on behalf of the patient. A party such as ours, the priorities of which are dominated by the interests of patients, not providers, wishes to see that further advanced. I strongly urge the Labour party to speak to many of its supporters who are active, innovative and energetic GP fund holders. They are showing the way to others.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Is the Secretary of State aware of the blatant abuse of the two-tier system in the Coventry and Warwickshire area, and of the consequences of it on the Walsgrave hospital trust? The hospital has refused to operate a two-tier service. The nearby George Eliot hospital offers to fund holders' patients half the waiting time that it offers to health authority patients. As a result, the George Eliot hospital is undermining the Walsgrave hospital trust and is in danger of causing redundancies in the trust. Surely the Secretary of State is aware of this. The blatant introduction of a two-tier service and abuse of the service are causing redundancies within the system that would otherwise be unnecessary.

Mrs. Bottomley: All hospitals are maintaining their patients charter standards. We are seeing a steady downward pressure on waiting times for all patients. The average was previously nine months. It is now down to five months. There has been a 20 per cent. fall in the number waiting more than a year in the past year alone.
I repeat that fund holders are funded fairly and comparably. We want all GPs to come forward and have the benefits of fund holding. It is a voluntary scheme. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the comments of Professor Howard Glenister from the London School of Economics. He said:
GP fund holding shifts the balance of power away from hospitals towards GPs and primary care. It replaces a top-down model of the NHS resource allocation with a bottom-up model driven by GPs acting as purchasers on behalf of patients.
I commend Professor Glenister's work to the hon. Gentleman.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend will recall that she was good enough to waive the requirement that there should be 7,000 patients for one practice in the southern end of my constituency, when it had already recruited every man, woman and child in its area. That practice is now going from strength to strength. It has extended its buildings and is an example to all others in the area. Will she help fund-holding practices to extend now to the north end of my constituency?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. Those general practitioners with practice sizes that did not reach the 7,000-patient limit are bringing to bear pressure that they should be able to join the scheme. That is why we so welcome the consortia that are developing, which make it possible to push through the preferences of general practitioners in the delivery of care for patients.

Ms Primarolo: When will the Secretary of State accept the evidence that a two-tier system is being created by GP fund holders? The joint consultants committee has handed her a document which demonstrates that 70 per cent. of hospitals are fast-tracking GP fund holder patients. When will she act on that information? When will she make it impossible for GP fund holders to make profits for themselves instead of spending the money in the national health service where it is needed? When will she finally agree to prevent the payment of a £35,000 management fee to every GP fund holder to be spent on bureaucracy and instead give it to practice nurses, who are desperately needed in our community?

Mrs. Bottomley: When a hospital has completed the contract that it has agreed with the district health authority to meet its patients' targets and to ensure that it improves the quality and quantity of care, if it has spare capacity it can give it to another health authority or to a GP fund holder. The hon. Lady should ask why the GP fund holders have been able to use comparable amounts of money so much more effectively. Let us learn from that. Let us level up and have good value for money, rather than look for the lowest common denominator.
The hon. Lady resists no opportunity to take a swipe at any managers in the health service. The management allowance for GP fund holders is enabling resources to be used more effectively; it is about 2 per cent. of the cost. There have been benefits of about 4 per cent. These are ploughed into better patient care. They do not go into the GPs' pockets. They go to physiotherapists, chiropodists and—exactly what the hon. Lady wants—more practice nurses.

Accident and Emergency Units

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many hospital accident and emergency units medical staff are routinely made available to assess the seriousness of each case immediately on arrival.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I cannot give my hon. Friend the information that he seeks in numerical form, but I assure him that there has been excellent progress around the country, including in his local hospital, in achieving the targets set under the patients charter for accident and emergency units.

Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to immediate assessments by medically qualified staff as to the seriousness of an accident, a patient at an emergency unit also wishes to know how long he or she is likely to wait and where he or she stands in the queue? As the latter seems to be capable of being achieved at the delicatessen counters of supermarkets, will he please ensure that it is also achieved in our hospitals?

Mr. Sackville: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's advice, but he should remember that the giving out of


tickets in an accident and emergency unit would not necessarily be appropriate as patients are not necessarily seen in the order in which they arrive. In his hospital and many others, there is now a formal system of triage by which patients are prioritised and seen in order, depending on the seriousness of their condition.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the emergency units be able to cope with more, clearly very urgent, cases of babies with neo-natal hypothermia when, as expertly forecast, more vulnerable babies in low-income families feel the effects of VAT on domestic heating? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that leading midwives have warned that there will be a sharp increase in deaths from that cause? What advice have Health Ministers given Treasury Ministers about that preventable tragedy?

Mr. Sackville: I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about neo-natal intensive care. May I point out that accident and emergency units are now better equipped and better staffed to deal with all eventualities.

Dame Jill Knight: May I press my hon. Friend to look again at the suggestion from the conference of royal medical colleges last week to the effect that all cancer and heart patients ought to be assessed expertly as to the urgency of their needs? After all, accident and emergency patients are seen on the same day while some other patients have to wait up to six months for an appointment with a consultant. Will my hon. Friend please try to do something about that?

Mr. Sackville: I note what my hon. Friend says. Clearly, all urgent cases must be seen as a matter of priority. That must be sorted out between general practitioners and consultants.

Contact Lenses

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on charging for contact lenses prescribed and supplied by national health service hospital eye clinics.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Contact lenses may be prescribed through the hospital eye service if the patient has clinical need for them. A charge is made, although there are a number of categories of patient who are exempt.

Mr. Prentice: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that my 70-year-old pensioner constituent, Dorothy Shanley, and 20 or 30 other people like her in my area will not have to pay £300 a year for the contact lenses that they need? Is it not a fact that the regulations are about as clear as mud and that hundreds of anomalies need to be ironed out if my pensioner constituents are not to face such disgraceful treatment?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's constituent had a problem with the Burnley trust. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), the Under-Secretary of State, wrote about that case to the hon. Gentleman on 29 July. I am happy to repeat what was said in the letter, which is that I regret the fact that there was a misinterpretation of the guidelines at Burnley which caused a degree of distress to the hon. Gentleman's constituent. The guidelines are not "clear as mud" but are perfectly clear and are operating in the rest of the country.

There was a misinterpretation in Burnley which has been resolved. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in his letter, Mrs. Shanley's case can now be carried forward under the proper guidelines and in line with the advice of her consultant.

Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend is aware that the number of eye tests carried out is broadly similar to that before charges were imposed. Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will continue to ensure that we provide the most help in respect of charges where the need is greatest?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes a good point in both regards. As he said, the number of sight tests has come back to the original level. We are concerned to ensure that needs are met and, as my hon. Friend will know, a significant number of people are entitled to help as a consequence of those need and exemption arrangements.

Mr. Blunkett: In the light of the discussions between BUPA and GP fund holders about the sale of private insurance through GP practices and the words of the Chief Secretary—I use his words—that charges will be needed to offer comfort and choice to people in hospitals as part of cutting back on NHS spending, will the Minister give an assurance to the House that all existing free prescription charges will remain, including for categories such as pregnant women and nursing mothers, and that no new charges will be introduced in the NHS for all of us who pay our taxes for a free and equal service?

Dr. Mawhinney: I would not want any element of discord to arise between the hon. Gentleman and myself, but his question went considerably wider than the one that we were discussing.

Mr. Blunkett: Answer the question.

Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Gentleman will give his lungs a rest, I might have a chance to do so.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read again the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made at the Blackpool conference. It was an excellent speech and contained much that the hon. Gentleman ought to learn, mark and inwardly digest, including comments about this subject.

General Practices

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure the continuance of satisfactory deputising/on-call services for general practice.

Dr. Mawhinney: The Government remain committed to ensuring the continuance of a good quality out-of-hours service. To this end, we are currently discussing with the medical profession how best to take forward this commitment.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is well aware of the high regard in which services such as Maidstone doctors on call —MAIDDOC—and Medway doctors on call—MEDDOC—in my constituency are held, and the anxiety with which MAIDDOC views the new formula because of the difficulties that patients have in rural areas. Can my hon. Friend offer words of comfort to the committed doctors, that they will be able to continue in those services after he has completed his negotiations?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right, I am aware of those issues, not least because of the eloquent advocacy with which my hon. Friend expresses the concern of his constituents. I am further aware that his constituents hold the services that they receive in high regard, and those services form part of the discussions that I am having with the general medical services committee. We need to look at a number of issues, not least the use of the cash-limited funds of the family health services authority. We want to do that against a background of ensuring that decisions are devolved as closely towards the patient as possible.

Paramedics

Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress towards the target of placing a paramedic on each frontline emergency ambulance.

Mr. Sackville: There has been excellent progress in paramedic training in all ambulance services.

Mr. Bates: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Cleveland ambulance trust on achieving its target of having a paramedic on each of its 18 frontline ambulances three years ahead of target? It was the first ambulance service to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is another example of how the new ambulance trusts are delivering improvements in health care and emergency cover to the communities that they serve?

Mr. Sackville: Indeed. After my visit to the Cleveland ambulance service—I thank my hon. Friend for his invitation—I said to myself that if Cleveland can do it, why not the rest of the country? At that time, Cleveland was four years ahead of target, and I decided to bring forward to 1995 the target date by which there would be a fully trained paramedic on every frontline ambulance. The manner in which my hon. Friend's local ambulance service has achieved its target is a tribute to it, and I hope that he will pass on my congratulations.

Mr. Spearing: Will not the Minister agree that, irrespective of the importance of paramedics, it is even more important to get an ambulance to the scene in the first place, within the limits laid down by the patients charter? Is the Minister aware that in London in the summer there was an average of 50 occasions a day when ambulances arrived more than 26 minutes after they were called? Does the Minister not realise, from the answers that were given last Friday, that all ambulance authorities in the country comply with the 90 per cent. standard of response times, other than the London ambulance service, which achieved 58 per cent? Will he persuade the Secretary of State for Health to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to assure him that it costs more to run an ambulance service in London and to tell him that more money should be made available to the London ambulance service to enable it to meet the standards of the patients charter?

Mr. Sackville: I am aware of the sad fact that, almost uniquely in the country, the London ambulance service has not managed to come near the targets set down in the patients charter. I appreciate that there are special problems in London. There is a new management structure for the central area—where many of the problems occur—which will receive extra resources. With good will on all sides,

there is no reason why the London ambulance service should not meet the targets achieved elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not one of the advantages of putting a paramedic on every frontline emergency ambulance that he can assess the case and take the patient to the most appropriate trauma centre, particularly to local casualty units such as the Gravesend and North Kent hospital?

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is right to point to the possibility of trauma units. We have funded centrally the trauma unit at Stoke so that ambulance paramedics can pre-assess the most serious cases, bypass certain district accident and emergency units and take patients to a hospital where a special trauma team can be assembled. We are fairly certain that that experiment will show that it is possible greatly to increase the chances of survival after the most serious accidents.

Wakefield and Pontefract Hospitals

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received on the future provision of health services by the Wakefield and Pontefract trust hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Sackville: We have received a number of letters, including one from the hon. Member.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister is aware of the concerns and complaints that have been registered by the relatives and friends of elderly people who have been treated at the Pontefract and Pinderfields hospitals. When will he persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to commence the public inquiry, which the right hon. Lady promised the people in my area, to investigate the allegations of mistreatment of the elderly at Pinderfields hospital? When will she also agree to the request that I made many months ago for a meeting to discuss the future of the hospitals and the medical care provided in the Wakefield area? Will the Minister investigate future provision for the mentally ill and the mentally disabled in the Pontefract and Wakefield areas?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I visited Pontefract twice in the past year. I am aware of three incidents involving elderly people in which care fell well below the standard we would expect. He is also aware, however, that the Nuffield Institute is investigating those cases and has contacted the families of patients of the past few years. An internal inquiry into those cases is also being led by two consultants from Manchester and Cornwall. If there are lessons to be learnt, we shall act on them, but if the hon. Gentleman visits the geriatric department now he will find little cause for concern.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that a great deal of concern is felt within the Wakefield and Pontefract areas, and throughout the country, about the impact of trust status and fund holding on community care? Has the Minister had the opportunity to read the reply published this morning by Values into Action, entitled "The Resettlement Game", which reveals conclusively that trust status is obstructing the process of providing community care for people with learning difficulties? Has the hon. Gentleman also had an opportunity to talk to Dr. David


Tod, the president of the National Association of Fund Holding GPs, a prominent Tory who spoke at the Conservative conference in Blackpool about the value of fund holding? Has the Minister asked that doctor why he, along with certain other GPs has refused to take patients from mental handicap hospitals? Where does that leave the Government's community care policies?

Mr. Sackville: I am aware that there are a great number of GP fund holders in the hon. Gentleman's area, but that is nothing to be scared of and I would thank him for not putting around scare stories. I have no reason to believe that GP fund holders would take decisions that are not in the interests of their patients overall.

Hormone Replacement Therapy Clinics

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are available for health authorities to set up dedicated hormone replacement therapy clinics.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Health authorities are required to assess local needs and place contracts for services accordingly. These services may include clinics specialising in the menopause and hormone replacement therapy.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there are still relatively few specialist units around the country and that most are in the private sector? That means that women who rely on the national health service do not have access to such treatment unless they can afford to pay for it. Given the amazing benefit from that treatment, of which I am an amazing example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] and the fact that this treatment could save the health service millions of pounds, because without it women are currently likely to suffer from osteoporosis, strokes and other terrible diseases, does my hon. Friend agree with me that the health service should be encouraged to dedicate funds to it so that lots more women can grow old gracefully?

Mr. Bowis: I know, and the world knows, of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. She knows, as I know, that such therapy is available from the national health service in all its forms. The number of prescriptions for such treatment has quadrupled in the past decade. My hon. Friend will also be aware, as I am, that although HRT is one of the answers to diseases such as osteoporosis, there are many other ways in which to ensure that women grow old gracefully, as my hon. Friend said, and that brittle bones and other problems are avoided. My hon. Friend will be aware that one such alternative is exercise. Having seen my hon. Friend work out with her pompoms, I can assure the House that she takes that side of the argument as seriously as that in favour of HRT.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is radiant proof of the efficacy of hormone replacement therapy. Will the Minister acknowledge that HRT is not help for women only, but many men could benefit from it—certainly an awful lot of men in this place?

Mr. Bowis: To be fair, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would benefit from remedies for problems related to the menopause, but I rely on him to assure me about that. Men and women benefit from better women's

health, and women's health can be helped by that therapy. That is why in the past year we spent £61 million supporting it.

Hospital Treatment, Hampshire

Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much long waits for hospital treatment have been reduced in Hampshire over the past two years.

Mr. Bowis: Since 31 March 1991, the number of patients waiting for in-patient and day case treatment for more than a year in the four health districts in Hampshire has fallen from 3,489 to 1,033. At 31 March 1991, more than 950 patients were waiting more than two years for treatment. Now no one in Hampshire has to wait for more than two years.

Mr. Milligan: That is exceptionally good news, especially for those people—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may jeer, but for those waiting many years for hip replacements that is especially good news. Does my hon. Friend agree that if further action is to be taken to reduce waiting lists one course would be to complete the reorganisation of London hospitals so that areas such as Hampshire get a fairer share of the budget? Given that Southampton general hospital has a greater success rate in general surgery than any London hospital, is it not right that the system by which London hospitals receive the lion's share of resources should be ended as soon as possible?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes important points about resources and the spreading of them across the country, about the reforms that we have put in place and about the review that is going on in London. I can assure him that the progress that has been made in his part of the world is being made in other parts of the country, including London. Overall, 50 per cent. of patients needing hospital treatment are immediately admitted—98 per cent. in under one year. My hon. Friend drew attention to the number of hip replacements. There have been 50,000 such operations in the past year, as well as 60,000 varicose vein operations, and 90,000 people have had cataract operations. It is a pity that those figures are not sometimes recognised by Opposition Members.

Mrs. Wise: Do people in Hampshire have to wait two or three years for referral to a pain relief clinic, as they do in Preston? I am informed by the Preston health authority that people in Preston—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am quoting—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is aware that quotations are not allowed during Question Time.

Mrs. Wise: Do people in Hampshire have to wait until the end of 1996—three years—for reference to a pain relief clinic for chronic pain?

Mr. Bowis: We shall certainly look at any particular problem in Preston. As the hon. Lady is aware, Preston is not in Hampshire, but in both Hampshire and Preston we have great progress. The decisons on planning for meeting the needs of the hon. Lady's area are down to the health authorities there, and I must not second guess their clinical health decisions. I am sure that the health authorities for the Preston area are doing their best to ensure that people get their treatment on time as set out in the patients charter.

GP Fund Holders

Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner practices are now participating in the fund-holding initiative; and what was the figure in April 1991.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The number of fund-holding practices is more than double what it was in 1991. It now includes 6,000 family doctors in 1,235 practices. The growing success of the scheme is shown by the fact that we expect a further 800 practices to join from next April.

Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid expansion that she has just announced, together with the fact that north Hertfordshire has more GP fund holders than any other district in the North West Thames region, shows the popularity of the scheme with ordinary family doctors? Does she agree that the next battle is to persuade the remaining doctors to join the scheme and to enable them to do so?

Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It looks as though, from next April, 99 per cent. of patients in his area will have a GP fund holder. It is a voluntary scheme for consenting adults. We believe that more GPs should see the advantages of fund holding. The best way in which they can do that is for them to talk to someone who has already taken forward the scheme, which now provides care for 12 million patients.

Mr. Flynn: Is the right hon. Lady aware that she is correct to say that we do not have a two-tier health service? In fact, we have a three-tier health service, with private patients jumping the queue and getting their treatment within days, fund-holding GPs' patients getting their treatment within months and non-fund-holding GPs' patients getting their treatment only within years. Is she proud to have increased privilege in the health service?

Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, the hon. Gentleman shows a bitter, blinkered and rather vindictive approach to the delivery of health care. I suggest that he talks to David Colin-Thome, who was previously a Labour candiate and who said that GP fund holding was the most energising thing to have happened to general practice in his 20 years as a doctor. We must not only set the national standards that the Labour party said we would never meet—we have not only met them, but beaten them—but find ways in which to encourage the rest to do as well as the best. The scheme is voluntary and we want more fund holders to come forward.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that GP fund holding is very popular with patients, because it improves patient services, and also with GPs, who are voting with their feet? Can my right hon. Friend offer any psychoanalysis to explain why the Labour party is intent on abolishing this popular reform?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am afraid that the Labour party, which constantly looks backwards rather than forwards, cannot bear to devolve power: it all has to be command and control. The whole point about GP fund holding is that it empowers the GP. It is the GP who is the agent of the patient and when he has control over the budget, which would otherwise have been spent for him, he makes shrewd and wise decisions which are sensitive to patients' needs.

That is the distinction between our party and the Labour party. The Labour party wants to tell people what to do; we want to empower them.

Community Care

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to meet the Spastics Society to discuss community care.

Mr. Bowis: My right hon. Friend met the society when she opened its Ruth Garwood lodge in the summer. I have not been approached for a meeting, but I am always ready to consider any such request. I personally very much value the contribution of the Spastics Society to community care.

Mr. Purchase: Does the Minister realise that such is the shortage of funds in local authorities that they cannot afford the level of occupational therapists needed? The Spastics Society is now having to divert its funds into that employment, and the local authority assessment services using occupational therapists now cannot get round to the people desperately in need of assistance and adaptations in their homes. What does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Bowis: The whole question of assessment of need is central to our community care policy. We have in place a system which assesses each individual's needs, both in terms of residential needs where that is appropriate and in terms of any medical treatments and therapies. Those needs are assessed and they are then put out to be met by the providers. The Spastics Society makes excellent provision, although some of that provision has proved costly. The society needs to look at efficiency and savings within its own organisation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the money that has been put into community care is more than sufficient, as has been recognised by the Association of Directors of Social Services, which has said that in the early months of community care the system is up and running and that it is optimistic about the future.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend ensure that as much as possible of the £565 million for community care goes to efficient voluntary groups and not to town hall bureaucracies, which do not deliver an efficient and fair service?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. As he knows, we have encouraged local authorities to work closely in both the planning and execution of community care with the voluntary and the independent sector. Voluntary and private providers have an important part to play. We have made a requirement that 85 per cent. of the transitional grant be allocated to that sector. That requirement is being met in most parts of the country. There is a great willingness among social services departments to meet it. I am confident that we can go forward with community care in partnership with the public, private and voluntary sectors.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Meale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Meale: In relation to the Bilsthorpe colliery disaster, in the light of new photographic evidence which refutes the report of the health and safety inspectorate into that disaster, will the Prime Minister now agree to a full public inquiry, as soon as possible, that is open to the public so that we can get over the whole of this nonsense which shows the difficulties that are hitting the coalfield communities of Britain?

Mr. Major: I have not seen the photographic evidence to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I will certainly look at that photographic evidence and examine it. I believe that there has been a substantial inquiry. None the less, I will examine it and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major impediments to reducing unemployment across Europe is high wage costs—not to be confused with high wages? We must continually draw a distinction between the high cost of employment loaded on top of paying high wages. Will he continue his efforts diplomatically within Europe to ensure that we in Britain win the argument that there is no contradiction between paying people high wages and seeking to reduce the costs of employing people generally?

Mr. Major: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I believe that that view is increasingly being taken by Governments and by employers right the way across western Europe and elsewhere. There is no doubt that the higher the sum total of costs, the larger the resultant level of unemployment will be both in Europe and elsewhere. At present, there are 18 million citizens unemployed across Europe. Estimates are that in Europe as a whole that may be 20 million in a year or so. We all need to look to see how we can get those costs down and people back in work.

Mr. John Smith: I am sure that the Prime Minister is well aware of the revulsion and outrage felt throughout the whole of the nation when it learned of the appalling tragedy of Saturday's bombing in Belfast. The violent and horrific aftermath, which has cost even more lives today, can only deepen and reinforce those feelings. Is it not absolutely clear that the response that the House of Commons must give to those who seek to impose their will by the bomb or the bullet is that they will not succeed in undermining this nation's total commitment to the democratic process?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for making that clear. The whole House will agree with him in those sentiments, as I do without reservation. The perpetrators of sectarian violence have committed cold-blooded and premeditated murder. Let me say to the House that they will be hunted down and they will be subject to the full severity of the law. That applies equally to those responsible for the outrage in the Shankill

road and to those responsible for the murders in west Belfast just a few hours ago. Such murders will have one effect and one effect only: they will deepen the bloodshed through revenge killings, and there will be more deaths, more misery and more years before Northern Ireland can return to the peaceful democratic future that everyone in the House wishes to see it have.

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that many Conservative Members were extremely pleased that he raised the question of the general agreement on tariffs and trade during the recent Cyprus summit? Will he find time today to contact the French members of the European Commission and tell them to spend less time worrying about creating a federal Europe and more time trying to persuade their Government to sign up to GATT?

The Prime Minister: We had a substantial discussion on the Uruguay round at the Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus over the past few days. What was striking about it was that with some 50 countries there—some large and some small, some agricultural and some industrial—from every part of the globe, there was total unanimity on the desirability of agreement in the trade talks, and agreement by 15 December this year. We agreed at the summit to dispatch a small mission of Ministers from countries in different parts of the Commonwealth to call in on a number of capitals and make it clear how important we consider the trade talks to be.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister will know that he has the backing of those in all parts of the House in his call for restraint to break the vicious cycle of tragedy and violence in Northern Ireland. He is right in saying that no British Government should ever be prepared to speak to those who will not abandon the bullet and the bomb. But does not effective action against terrorism also depend on the proper co-ordination of intelligence? Does the Prime Minister recognise that confusion between intelligence gatherers in Northern Ireland, and the fact that there are two lead agencies, on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, may lead—as it has in the past—to rivalry and squabbling, which undermine the battle against terrorism? Will the Prime Minister address that matter?

The Prime Minister: We keep our counter-terrorist arrangements under very close review. The Security Service now devotes around 40 per cent. of its total effort specifically to countering Irish terrorism. There have been considerable successes, although it is in the nature of these matters that the successes are not often public, whereas the failures are all too public.
I have looked at the question again in recent months, and I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not persuaded that the creation of a new single national authority would of itself enhance the fight against terrorism. There is, I think, a danger that it would add yet another link in the chain of command. But I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I consider the effectiveness of our counter-intelligence to be vital and keep it constantly under review.

Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. French: Does. my right hon. Friend agree that police officers should not be hampered in their fight against crime by the burden of excessive bureaucracy and paperwork? Will he join me in congratulating the Home Secretary on his announcement that the amount of form filling will be seriously cut?

The Prime Minister: I can agree not only with my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but with the recommendations of the Sheehy report in this respect. Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I want to see police officers fighting crime on the streets, not dealing with paperwork in their offices. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary last week accepted proposals which, once fully implemented, will cut paperwork in half. They will also put something like 2,300 policemen back on the streets, where all of us wish to see them.

Mr. Donohoe: Will the Prime Minister explain why the Government are this week to announce the winding up of the development corporation in my constituency, at a cost of £16·5 million, given that we have had announcements of some 700 job losses at Jetstream in Prestwick this month and of some 320 job losses in my constituency today? What logic is there behind the Government's decision?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that, uniquely in western Europe at the moment, we are now in a position where unemployment has stabilised and is gently beginning to fall. In case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed, unemployment has fallen in six of the last eight months, by a total of 84,000. It is falling against a trend of rising unemployment elsewhere across the European Community and it is now below the European average, despite the predictions of some Opposition Members some months ago. The hon. Gentleman might have addressed the reality of what is happening for once.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Brixham, south Devon, to discuss the future of the fishing and shellfish industry.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made widespread visits to ports, including Brixham, to consult fishermen.

Mr. Steen: The people of Brixham are well aware of the Government's commitment to the west country, what with assisted area status for Torbay and an application to the European fund for 5b status for Brixham. But when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comes to Brixham, will he meet fishermen and assure them that he will not be pushed around by the Portuguese or Spanish, who want to seize our fishing stock and want more fish from our sovereign waters? Will he tell fishermen that he will not introduce a conservation measure until other European countries have similar conservation measures and until their policing of them is as good as ours? Finally, will he

take a cup of tea at the Melville hotel so that he hear from Brixham's hoteliers that if he reduced rules and regulations on the hotel industry it would do more for tourism than anything else?

The Prime Minister: I will look forward not only to a cup of tea but, I suspect, something stronger by the time we have dealt with that agenda. I recognise the industry's concern about access for Spanish and Portuguese vessels. The Commission's proposals for rules from 1996 have now been announced, and we have made it clear that they must not lead to an increase in fishing effort. I attach great importance to strict observance of Community rules, including quotas. We therefore welcome the control regulations, which will help to ensure consistent enforcement. One of the areas of the Maastricht treaty perhaps not generally recognised by everyone is that it now gives greater power to ensure that everyone across the Community obeys Community regulations and can face substantial fines if they do not do so. [Interruption.] Hon. Members below the Gangway may scoff. They simply prove, as I have always suspected, that they have never read or understood the Maastricht treaty.

Madam Speaker: I now call Mr. Jim Marshall: it is a closed question.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Prime Minister recall the speech that the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) made on 9 November 1990, in which he said that the British Government have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland—

Madam Speaker: Order. I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that it is a closed question. It deals with Brixham, south Devon and the fishing industry. We must move on to Mr. David Sumberg.

Engagements

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a proposal by the Department of Transport to build a new six-lane motorway adjacent to the existing eight-lane M62, which cuts through my constituency? This proposal would involve the demolition of more than 350 homes. It is creating widespread housing and planning blight and is regarded by me and the whole community as an environmental disaster. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Department of Transport to withdraw the proposals forthwith?

The Prime Minister: I understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and I know how vigorous he has been in expressing them on behalf of his constituents. I can undertake that the Department of Transport will take into account the views that have been expressed to me by my hon. Friend, and those of his constituents.

Q7. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir John Hannam: Given my right hon. Friend's support and commitment to the people of the south-west, can he give any encouragement to our wish to see a slowing down in the programme of implementation of EC water directives and a lowering of future water charges for the hard-pressed people of Devon and Cornwall?

The Prime Minister: As I think my hon. Friend knows, we are seeing what scope there is to apply the directives more flexibly and to minimise the cost that would otherwise fall on the water user in the south-west. We are therefore inviting our Community partners to re-examine priorities in the detailed implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive and also to consider whether the timetable for meeting the obligations is consistent with the current economic conditions in the Community. There is no quick or simple answer to this matter, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are continuing to explore all avenues to try to minimise the costs that would otherwise arise.

Mr. Boyce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Boyce: The Prime Minister talks about a recovery being under way, led by this country. How can he tell us that we must face reality when, in reality, jobs are haemorrhaging in our constituencies every day? The Primė Minister is aware that a steel works is to close in my constituency, with the loss of 260 jobs carried out by the most flexible operatives in the country, if not the world. What words of comfort has the Prime Minister for those people who have been thrown on the scrap heap?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that unemployment is falling in this country, whereas it is not falling in other countries. Unemployment fell last month among both men and women in every region and in every part of the country. That month's decrease confirms the underlying strength of the economy. As the hon. Gentleman perhaps does not know, long-term unemployment has fallen over the last six months; long-term unemployment over longer periods has fallen; vacancies have risen; and the work force in employment have also risen. There is still a long way to go to get unemployment at the levels we would wish to see, but those Opposition Members who were keen to forecast 3·5 million unemployment just a few months ago had better stand up and admit now that it is under 3 million and falling.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been the custom and practice of the House, certainly while I have been here and, I believe, from time immemorial, that former hon. Members are able to come to the Members' Lobby so that hon. Members may have the opportunity to meet them. You will know that in the recess I invited the president of Sinn Fein to come so that hon. Members could hear directly his proposals— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members have to be heard, however unpopular it is thought that their views might be. That will continue to be the case so long as I am Speaker.

Mr. Benn: I invited him so that hon. Members would have the opportunity to hear directly from him the proposals that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) had been discussing during the recess.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that I came to see you on Monday last week, at your request, and was able to ascertain, as I expected, that there would be no difficulty from the Chair's point of view in his following the practice to which I referred. On Tuesday, immediately following our meeting, and without telling the House, the Home Secretary issued an exclusion order, which was not disclosed to the House, on the day of the debate on Northern Ireland, which was very poorly attended, with only a handful of hon. Members present.
I am not referring to the order, which is a matter for the Government for which they are accountable, but is it not right that the rights of former hon. Members should be respected for the benefit of current hon. Members as there are many who think—and I am one—that we should explore every avenue to end the killing and the horrors which have occurred in Northern Ireland?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can deal with this point of order, thank you very much. What the right hon. Gentleman is confirming is that arrangements have been made to give former hon. Members a right of access to

certain parts of the Palace. This right does not of course apply to former Members who, for one reason or another, do not have the right to travel as far as the Palace.
The right hon. Gentleman is really complaining about the actions of the Home Secretary in the performance of his duties. Like all Ministers, the Home Secretary is answerable to the House for everything that he does in his official capacity. The Home Secretary is not responsible to me, and it is not my intention to make any comment on any action that he decides to take.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. No further point of order on that matter arises. I have dealt with it.

Mr. Duncan: rose—

Madam Speaker: There is no further point of order on that matter. Is it a totally different point of order? No, I do not think that it is.

Mr. Duncan: rose—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me make it quite clear. If it is a different point of order, I must hear the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Is it different?

Mr. Duncan: indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: In that case I shall hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Duncan: I was merely seeking your guidance, Madam Speaker, on the question whether, had the Home Secretary not issued the exclusion order, the privileges would have been extended to Gerry Adams, given the fact that he did not take the oath and never took his seat in the House.

Madam Speaker: I am saying that it is the Home Secretary who is responsible, and I shall make no further comment on that matter.
We shall now move on to a ten-minute rule motion and again to Mr. Anthony Steen.

Deregulation (No. 3)

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the numbr of rules and regulations emanating from Next Steps agencies.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your kindness in calling me to address the House. I seek the leave of the House to introduce the last in a trilogy of ten-minute Bills in order to draw attention to the onward march of the new bureaucracy, which has developed the knack of interpreting directives from Brussels so as to cause the maximum disruption to our business culture and to divert business energies away from job creation and towards dealing instead with bureaucrats whose principal aim is the over-zealous enforcement of rules and regulations.
It is the interaction between our established civil service at Westminster and the over-zealous application by officials at local level that is delaying the upturn in our economy, and blocking those who desire to make this nation more successful.
Like Dutch elm disease, the new phenomenon strikes at the root of public service culture, whether with the 1,422 quangos in this country or with the next steps agencies. Officialdom is pushing businesses to the brink, and many go under, which in turn creates additional unemployment and further burdens on the benefits system.
John Perrett owns and runs his own boat construction company in Galmpton, not far from Brixham. For nearly half a century his "Western Ladies", former rescue motor launches from the second world war, have safely plied between Brixham and Torquay carrying thousands of passengers. Now, because of new safety legislation, all potential passengers must have, in addition to the buoyancy aids and lifebelts that they currently enjoy, lifejackets, not to mention inflatable liferafts. The requirements are so demanding that Mr. Perrett tells me that his boats will be crammed so full of lifesaving equipment that there will be little room for passengers. He also has to find room for an additional 12 flares, two additional hand-held VHF radios—in plastic bags, of course—and four hand-held smoke flares. Furthermore, all the lifebelts will have to be fitted with radar-reflective tapes. The cost will be more than £18,000.
Mr. Perrett is a reasonable man. It is only 4·5 miles across Torbay, and his boats are hardly more than half a mile away from the shore. Yet his boats are expected to maintain the same safety standards as ocean-going liners. If the unflinching chiselled face of bureaucracy does not mellow, Mr. Perrett will be put out of business after 45 years.
So it is with furniture. The regulations demand fire-resistant furniture in holiday homes but, oddly enough, that requirement does not apply to furniture in hotels, guest houses or bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The rationale is that guests staying in flats are in control of their furniture while hotel and bed-and-breakfast guests are not —as if the furniture has an independent will and wanders about on its own. As a consequence, holiday flat owners must fund replacement furniture. Many just do not have the money for that and are closing down.
Preventive legislation is all very well when there is plenty of money about. However, after four years of recession, people just cannot do what the public officials want them to. Devon county council found £160,000 of

public money to spend on preventive measures. It built two roundabouts just outside Kingsbridge in the middle of nowhere in order to reduce the likelihood of accidents, and it straightened roads to make them less dangerous. The council then approved an additional £1 million of traffic-calming measures to slow traffic.
Officialdom is not discriminating. It will hound the public sector as well as swipe at the private sector. Take the 2½ ft paddling pool in Stoke Gabriel village primary school on the banks of the Dart. Suddenly, after 25 years of the paddling pool's existence, the school received a bill for £1,800 from the National Rivers Authority. "If it is water, we'll charge you for it", said the NRA. The fact that the water is removed by buckets and the pool is refilled with rainwater every year is irrelevant. The NRA demanded payment. If I may say so, it was my exposure of the NRA's bullying tactics which caused it to change its mind.
We live in a Kafkaesque society which penalises the law-abiding and rewards offenders. Just take a look at village halls in rural communities which are run by volunteers—something that the Conservative party supports. Those people give their time voluntarily. The village hall is the pivotal point for the community. It provides for playgroups, over-sixties' lunches, badminton groups and youth clubs as well as a place for public meetings.
If the village hall community wishes to improve its hall by adding an extension, it must raise additional money from the private sources to pay the VAT. No wonder village hall extensions are now being built without interconnecting doors. Without interconnecting doors, the extension is considered to be new build and therefore no VAT is payable.
People who want to go from the old hall to the new extension when it is pouring with rain must dive out of one door and they arrive, soaked to the skin, through another door in the new extension. You may think that that is a little mad, Madam Speaker. If the village hall kitchen is to be improved, the environmental health officer arrives on the scene. Every year, a fire officer comes around and each fire officer interprets the regulations differently.
If a public entertainment licence is required, the village hall community must satisfy the magistrate that there are sufficient loos. To have a public entertainment licence, there must be a loo for the physically handicapped. There is one concession. Not surprisingly, the provision of a loo for the physically handicapped or disabled does not attract VAT. Not surprisingly, all village halls are now building loos only for the physically handicapped.
Quangos, next steps agencies and self-financing regulatory agencies are all forcing people to retrench and step back to look inwards rather than to look outwards optimistically to the future. Take my experience. Two weeks ago I parked my car in Waterloo place near Pall Mall to take a constituent to meet a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I paid my money and put my ticket on the windscreen. I am told that five minutes later my car was lifted off the road and taken to a pound. Inside was my seven-year-old West Highland terrier who was left in the pound for over an hour, frightened, cold and unattended. Apparently, one of the car's wheels may have intruded into the adjoining parking place in spite of the fact that it was nearly 6 pm and there were more than a dozen empty parking spaces either side of the car.
The police say that the contractors are a law unto themselves. The more vehicles they take away, the more they earn. They rely on most victims not having the energy, money or determination to pursue them. Many of the teams prowl around the capital seizing people's cars—the modern equivalent of highway men, over-zealously interpreting rules and regulations for their own financial gain.
The unrestrained growth of rules and regulations has become a scourge of this country and a kind of creeping paralysis that threatens the fabric of our lives and invades the quality and freedom of our very existence. It is a menace which has, for far too long, been allowed to fester. It attacks the individual and wipes out small firms. It hampers recovery and inhibits enterprise. It causes hostility and creates anger, despair and exasperation. It inspires anti-social behaviour. It attacks the very fabric of our society.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Sir Michael Grylls, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Michael Neubert, Sir Anthony Durant, Sir Donald Thompson, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir Keith Speed, Mr. Roger Evans and Mr. John Sykes.

DEREGULATION (No. 3)

Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to reduce the number of rules and regulations emanating from Next Steps agencies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 October and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

Mines (Health and Safety)

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that arrangements have been made by the Government to provide an extra hour and a half for this debate. However, you will notice from the Order Paper that the instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is a matter of considerable regret. Indeed, the Committee would normally consider the instrument this afternoon and therefore it would be impossible to report to the House.
It should be recorded that the Committee is there to do a job and that it cannot possibly do that job if the debate takes place before the report is made, particularly in view of the fact that the Committee, when it considers the instrument, will consider a report from our counsel that the instrument is defectively drafted and makes unexpected use of powers. Obviously, I cannot predict the outcome of the Committee, but those elements are under consideration and, unfortunately, the House cannot consider that because of the rush to undertake the debate, which is at the insistence of the Government and not of the Opposition.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members will have noticed the item on the Order Paper which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has referred to and has elaborated on. I am sure that the House is grateful for his comments.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1897), dated 28th July 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th August, be annulled.
These new regulations were published on 6 August after the House adjourned. They and the code of practice were supposed to come into operation on 1 October before the House resumed. That prevented Members of Parliament from mining areas from making representations on behalf of their constituents before the regulations came into operation, but it is not clear to people in the mining industry whether the new regulations are in operation at this moment or whether they are being implemented. I wonder whether the Minister would tell us what the situation is.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The regulations came into force on 1 October. The coal board and other operators of mines are obviously covered by the regulations.

Mr. Dobson: Perhaps the Minister will tell us which rules now apply below ground. British Coal has written to the industry's trade unions, saying that the necessary consultations for bringing the rules into operation could not be achieved by 1 October. In its letter it stated:
so in the meantime we intend to maintain the existing structures pending the outcome of such consultations.
Which laws now apply in Britain's mines below ground? Are they the old ones or the new ones? If they are the new ones, could the Minister tell British Coal?

Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, if he understands this subject, should ask such a question. The regulations apply. There is no evidence to suggest that British Coal is not complying with them. The point which is being made by British Coal is that the existing structures —that is, where deputies carry out both the supervision and the inspection roles—will continue, and the regulations provide for that.

Mr. Dobson: A large number of people are risking their lives working below ground today and they are confused about the situation. Certainly those responsible for the supervision of safety are confused about the situation. It is worth reminding the House that, on a previous occasion when there were substantial changes in the laws applying to safety under ground, those whose lives would be affected and the managements concerned were given a year in which to make the necessary changes in the arrangements, not a squalid little period in the middle of the summer, as was the case this time.
Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, any changes to health and safety regulations must maintain or improve standards of health and safety. We believe that the new regulations produced by the Government will not maintain or improve safety standards—they will reduce safety. That is why the regulations are being challenged in the courts and why they should not be passed by the House today.
Basically, mines run by British Coal are the safest in the world. They are twice as safe as those in west Germany, and three or four times safer than deep mines in the United States and other parts of the developed world. That proud British record has resulted from the detailed safety regulations laid down by law, the uniquely powerful and effective position of pit deputies and, until recently, a culture in British mining that put safety first.
Clearly that is a good case for the Government to leave well alone. However, they do not intend to leave well alone. Nor do they intend to build on the sound foundations of the British way of doing things that has made Britain's mines the safest in the world. The new proposals will replace the detailed regulations which have served so well in the past, with codes of practice. The new regulations will dispense with the unique role of the deputies, reducing them to the subordinate position of safety inspectors.
The new regulations are intended to produce a new culture underground with paramount attention given to production rather than safety. Not content with that, the new regulations will permit the Health and Safety Executive to exempt any mine or mine owner from any or all of the regulations without reference to Parliament or the Health and Safety Commission. The new regulations are likely to result in more deaths and injury, more grief and anger and more sanctimonious Tory Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box to express sympathy for the victims and praise for the emergency services.
The Government are introducing the regulations to promote deregulation and privatisation. The Tories are addicted to deregulation and privatisation. Like all addicts, they cannot be deflected by rational argument or concern for others. They will sacrifice anyone to feed their stupid addiction. This time, it is the turn of the miners.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No.
The Tory Government are determined to privatise what is left of the British coal industry. They got their friends in the City to tout Britain's mines and miners around the foreign coal companies, asking those companies what they wanted done to make the British assets even more attractive. They were told by the foreign coal owners that the safety standards in Britain's mines were too high, high safety standards cost money and more coal could be produced more cheaply if standards were reduced. Ever willing to oblige, the Government have set about doing what the foreign coal owners requested. The new regulations will change the rules to allow foreign coal owners to come to our country and to kill and maim as many miners in Britain as they have done in their mines abroad. They may reduce the cost of coal, but there will be a price to pay, and that price will be paid by British miners and their next of kin.

Mr. John Marshall: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the regulations will be similar to, or markedly different from, those that prevail elsewhere in the European Community?

Mr. Dobson: The regulations will be remarkably similar to those that prevail elsewhere in the European Community. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to listen to what I was saying, he would know that all of the mines in the European Community are at least twice as dangerous as British mines, and many of them are three or four times more dangerous. We do not want useless foreign regulations. We want to stick to British regulations which have worked and which are the best in the world.
The changes to the regulations have been justified by some people on the ground that there has been technological change in the mining industry. However, some technological changes have made mining more complex and have increased the scale or operational size of the faces and the need for more human inspection.
At one stage in its formulation of the new regulations the Health and Safety Executive, which is supposed to be responsible for promoting safety, suggested that monitoring devices could be used to reduce the need for human inspections. One of the hazards that the executive had in mind was fires. It was then pointed out to the Health and Safety Executive that in 1987–88 only three out of 96 fires were spotted by monitoring devices. The other 93 were spotted by human beings; and the figures have been broadly similar ever since. In the light of those facts, the HSE had to abandon that line of argument, but persisted in pushing ahead with the regulations that it had formulated on the basis of its original false and sloppy assumptions.
It is also argued that fewer accidents occur at the coal face, where the law is stricter. There is some dispute about that, but the Government, British Coal and the HSE argue that there is no connection between contractors and the use of roof bolts, on the one hand, and accidents on the other. They claim that it is all a question of supervision. If it is all a question of supervision, surely the answer is to extend the stricter authority of the deputy to areas away from the face, as that authority is so successful in keeping down accidents at the face. That would be a common sense answer, but that is not what the regulations propose.
The real impetus for the new regulations is not concern about technological change, or some high-minded desire on the part of the Tories to reduce accidents away from the


coal face; it comes from a desire to reduce production costs by deregulating mine safety, to promote what are called flexible working practices.
The existing regulations and their supervision by the deputies are the targets for those who call for flexible working practices. All the literature proves it. Mr. L. J. Mills, former deputy chairman of British Coal, asserted:
changes in face management have all tended to founder on the overriding statutory authority of the deputy".
Mr. Albert Wheeler, something less than a hero in the Scottish coalfield and the present deputy chairman, claimed that
The officials have the role of safety checks and supervision of workers. Over the years the numbers have grown to give more intensive supervision at each place of work".
He proposed getting rid of a quarter of that supervision. What he did not add was that, as supervision has increased, accidents have been reduced.
What he was really objecting to was the culture of safety that has, until now, predominated in Britain's mines. The Government wish to change that culture. As recently as 11 October the Minister with responsibility for coal told the Coal Industry Society lunch that he believed that the existing culture of British Coal placed it at a significant disadvantage compared with mines in the United States.
The culture of mines in the United States is different, I will grant him that; it is a culture that allows three or four times as many miners to be killed and injured, and a culture where crooked, multinational mining companies have systematically rigged the readings on dust monitors and put at risk the lives and health of people who work for them.
Those multinational mining companies showing an interest in our mining industry have been prosecuted and fined. Recently, much to their surprise, one mining official was sent to gaol, but that did not happen until the deregulating Republicans had been thrown out of office. That is the American culture that the Tories want to introduce into Britain's mines which, until now, have been the safest in the world.
The Government have been getting advice from Boyds, the American mining engineers. In a sane world, Boyds would put forward British ideas to make American mines more safe, not American ideas to make British mines more dangerous. For that is what Boyds is doing.
Boyds produced a report for the Government. The Government published it in January of this year. That was before the fatal roof fall at Bilsthorpe colliery which the HSE attributed not to the use of roof bolts, but to the collapse of a pillar of coal which was too narrow to take the weight bearing down on it or, even possibly, the absence of any pillar at all. So what did Boyds recommend in January in its report before that fatal fall? It recommended that the pillars between workings should be reduced to a quarter of the thickness presently required, even by British Coal. So much for the culture that the Government want to import from the United States. Unsafe for any depth: that is their culture.
The Government will no doubt argue that the new regulations have the support of the HSE, and so they have. But they do not have the support of the trade union members of the commission who made clear the view that the proposed regulations do not improve or maintain health

and safety. The local authority member of the commission also questioned whether the regulations would, as required by law, improve or maintain safety.
The Government will also claim that the new regulations come from the HSE. I regret to say that these days the actions of the HSE are open to serious question. On mine safety the HSE has gone along with the management of British Coal and seems to see itself as having a duty to promote new working practices at the expense of its prime duty of promoting health and safety. It is ominous to note that in that self-same Boyds' report Boyds—the American mining engineers, accustomed to killing three or four times as many miners as are killed in Britain—says:
We acknowledge the more progressive attitude of HMI in the last year and encourage their continued co-operation and participation in improvement of colliery operations.
That is an unusual example of a poacher praising a gamekeeper. Poachers seldom praise gamekeepers, except when a gamekeeper conveniently agrees to look the other way. As a result of this progressive attitude and the continued co-operation welcomed by Boyds, the mines inspectors' relations with British Coal have become far too cosy.
I revert to the earlier example of the roof fall at Bilsthorpe colliery which killed three people. At present, although many people seem to be unaware of it, the use of roof bolts as a primary support is unlawful. They can be made lawful only if the HSE issues an exemption certificate. It claims that it issues exemption certificates sparingly. Such exemptions are supposed to lay down in detail the conditions appropriate to each particular case and to involve site investigations.
Yet the HSE's own interim report into the Bilsthorpe roof fall makes no reference to an exemption certificate or the circumstances in which the HSE might have issue it, what conditions, if any, were laid down or whether any site investigation took place. The HSE report into the roof fall, needless to say, exonerates roof bolts and attributes the collapse to the narrowness of a pillar of coal.
Had the HSE looked carefully enough, if it had looked at all, before issuing the exemption certificate, it would have found that roof bolts were to be used next to an old working, separated only by a pillar of coal just one metre wide, if there was any pillar at all. If the HSE had done its job properly before it issued that exemption certificate, it would have been alerted to the danger of the collapse of a thin pillar. It should have been aware of that danger because when a roof collapsed at Allerton Bywater on 26 July 1989 the self-same HSE issued a report which exonerated roof bolts and attributed the collapse to the thinness of the pillar involved. There is some explaining to be done, and the HSE should not be allowed to issue reports that exonerate it from a failure to carry out its duties.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the miners in north Nottinghamshire want is reassurance on this point? Given the catalogue of accidents that my hon. Friend has described, is not the correct way forward the holding of a full, open and independent public inquiry? The Health and Safety Executive is in the dark; it is being asked to be judge and jury at the same time. That clearly cannot be right.

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree, just as I agreed with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) during questions to the Prime Minister.
There can be no question but that there are serious doubts about the professional competence and commitment of the HSE in respect of the issuing of exemption certificates at Bilsthorpe. The HSE cannot clear itself; I do not think it can be cleared. We need a full, independent inquiry to find out what went on and why.

Mr. Cryer: That is an absolutely valid point. If what my hon. Friend is saying is true, does it not also follow that any new regulations recommended by the Health and Safety Executive are likely to be in breach of the legal obligation placed on it —endorsed by the Minister—to the effect that all regulations must have the aim of improving existing standards? It is patently clear from what my hon. Friend has said that the executive has not had regard to that important legal obligation, which was placed on it at the insistence of Labour Members in the 1974 Standing Committee.

Mr. Dobson: I absolutely agree. The HSE also has some obligation to explain the following. When the collapse occurred in the road that was being driven through with the use of roof bolting, there was no total collapse in the parallel road that was not using roof bolting. Ministers will see from the photograph of the double driveway that I have that that is so. The traditional system of support proved stronger and kept up some of the roof. But for the fact that the parallel road was kept open by the effectiveness of the old-fashioned roofing, more people would have died, because the rescuers went in along the parallel road.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of the reasons why most miners have long accepted that the roof-bolting practice is unsafe on its own is the fact that with the old-fashioned system of arches—still used in most pits —if there is a heavy roof fall, the chances are that the arches will be distorted or may even crumple and twist, but they will still leave a large enough aperture for people to escape through. My hon. Friend's photographs prove that, and the Ministers on the Front Bench should be ashamed of themselves. The Prime Minister says that there are three bastards in the Government. I do not think that he can count—there are three more on the Front Bench today.

Mr. Dobson: Once again, I agree. If anyone, including Tory Members, has any doubts about what I say about the shortcomings of the HSE in relation to mine safety, I refer him again to the report by Boyds. It states that blanket exemptions to allow the use of roof bolts are being issued by the Health and Safety Executive and they cover, not a specific place or circumstance, but a whole seam in a coal mine. That was not what was intended by Parliament when it granted the HSE the right to issue such exemptions.
There are no questions on conditions appropriate to each particular case and on-site investigations. Boyds, the American mining engineers, to whose views the Government attach such paramount importance, say that blanket exemptions are being issued.
It is a disgrace and it cannot be right. No safety inspectorate that takes its job seriously should operate in such a manner, and no safety inspectorate with such a lousy record of enforcing the law should expect its proposals for the most far-reaching changes in Britain's mining safety

regulations to go unchallenged. Nor can the Government justify the new regulations by relying on the perceived authority of an agency that is proving increasingly incapable of doing its proper job. I understand that the Health and Safety Commission is meeting to discuss reductions in the budget of the Health and Safety Executive. How will that improve the health and safety of miners?
The Health and Safety Executive has no authority in the matter. The House will judge the new regulations on their merits, and it should judge them harshly. Winston Churchill said that Parliament should direct upon the industry of coal mining a specially severe scrutiny and introduce regulations of a different character from those elsewhere. We already have such regulations. They have been in place for years and they have worked. They have made our coal mines the safest in the world. The existing regulations need to be updated and improved, but the new regulations do not update and improve on the old. Instead, the new foreign-based regulations uproot and cast aside a system that has proved that it works.
We are not considering some theoretical text on deregulation produced by the Adam Smith Institute. What we are considering directly affects the safety of men, our fellow citizens, working as deep as 2,000 ft underground —miners facing real dangers working in mines. We owe them a duty of care, and any hon. Member who takes that duty seriously cannot vote for the regulations.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): We have listened to a disgraceful speech, a vicious and unwarranted attack on a tripartite body, the Health and Safety Commission, and the Executive to which it is responsible. The Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations were not dreamt up by me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or the Government—[Interruption.] They were submitted to the Government by the Health and Safety Commission. I would not have been prepared to lay those regulations before the House without a clear view from the Health and Safety Commission that they were designed to improve health and safety in mines.

Mr. Skinner: The Health and Safety Commission was in the Government's pocket.

Mr. Forsyth: The Health and Safety Commission includes representatives from the Trades Union Congress. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the TUC is in the Government's pocket, he is mistaken.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Let us have a little more quiet from hon. Members below the Gangway. I am having difficulty hearing what the Minister is saying, and I am sure that other hon. Members are, too.

Mr. Forsyth: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in the case of the sedentary interventions, you have not been missing much.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the Minister agree that the idea of using the roof bolting is that it is cheaper than girders and would save money? The people who push for the introduction of roof bolting are


those at Hobart house, the coal board officials, Clarke and his cohorts who want to take the industry over when it is privatised.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Health and Safety Executive cannot allow exemptions for the use of roof bolts in a situation that would result in unsafe practices. That would be contrary to law. If the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) has complaints about the conduct of the Health and Safety Executive, he is free to raise them.
The debate today is about the Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations, which are not concerned with roof bolting except in so far as they put a stronger obligation on the management of coal mines and other mines to conduct their business in a way that gives priority to health and safety.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would not have been prepared to accept the regulations without a clear view from the Health and Safety Commission—a tripartite body—that they were designed to improve health and safety at mines. The commission's advice was that the new regulations would remedy serious defects and inadequacies in the existing law. Those who are opposed to the regulations should ask themselves who sits on the Commission that has proposed those regulations. Commissioners who have submitted the regulations and approved the associated codes of practice include members of the TUC and representatives of the CBI and of local government. It is a disgrace that Opposition Members should seek to challenge their integrity in that way.

Sir Harold Walker: The Minister is giving the House the impression that the Health and Safety Commission was unanimous in its decision. Will he make it clear that the TUC representatives were totally opposed to the proposals?

Mr. Forsyth: No, I will not make that clear. I will make it clear that some of the TUC representatives did not attend the meeting. The proposals were made by the commission with the express recommendation that they should be carried.
One of the reasons why there has been a delay is that I asked to be assured that the Health and Safety Executive was satisfied that the proposals are necessary to improve health and safety in mines.
The notion that the regulations are being slipped through at the last minute, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) had the nerve to suggest, is bizarre. Consultations on the regulations started in 1988 and all interested parties have had the opportunity to express a view and they have taken that opportunity. The British Coal Corporation, the National Association of Colliery Managers, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, the National Union of Mineworkers, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, the Federation of Small Mines, the Mining Association of the United Kingdom, professional institutions, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines have all had an opportunity to give their opinions.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Did not it occur to the Minister that, due to the serious nature of the regulations, it might be useful for him to consult not only the Health

and Safety Commission which had the majority view, but those organisations within the mining industry which, throughout the long period of consultation, had perceived grave weaknesses in British Coal's proposals? Would not it have been wise for the Minister to consult them before he decided to accept everything that was put before him, even though it is obvious to many in the industry that it is a recipe for danger?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has followed the matter closely and will therefore know that a discussion document on the matter was published in 1988 and that there have been two formal consultation proposals. Endless informal revisions have been issued, there have been at least 10 meetings with the unions concerned and the proposals have been considered six times by the Health and Safety Commission.
Peter McNestry, the general secretary of the union that sponsors the hon. Gentleman, had the nerve to say on the "Today" programme on 25 August that the consultations were "single sided". The hon. Gentleman could do well to spend time teaching his sponsors how to count. There have been endless consultations on the matter and both sides of industry have had every opportunity to explore the implications of the regulations.

Mr. Bill Etherington: Will the Minister explain to the House what percentage the TUC has of the voting power on the Health and Safety Commission? Does he accept that it is impossible for the TUC representatives to carry anything from a minority position on the Commission?

Mr. Forsyth: If that is a speech against the nature of tripartite bodies, I am surprised to hear it coming from the hon. Gentleman. The Health and Safety Commission is a tripartite body, and the unions have representatives. If he is concerned that the union representatives are being outvoted, he should know that the Health and Safety Commission proceeds by consensus. He should also know that it would be considerably easier for the union representatives to give their views if they attended the meetings where the matters are discussed. It is certainly true that at the last meeting not all the TUC people were present. Consideration of the regulations has been going on for some four years and they have been subject to widespread consultation. Despite all the consultation, where is the opposition coming from—except from Labour Members who choose to speak for the main dissenting voices outside? Who are the dissenting voices? They are NACODS and Mr. Arthur Scargill.

Mr. Dobson: If the Minister wants to sustain the basis of the tripartite approach to health and safety, will he confirm that, at the final meeting of the substantial number of meetings of the Health and Safety Commission at which the proposals were discussed, the TUC representatives made it clear that they did not support the proposals and believed that the new regulations would reduce health and safety? That is what the minutes say. If the Minister wants to deny that, God only knows why.
Will the Minister also confirm that the trade unions that represent the bulk of the people who work below ground in British mines are so opposed to the proposals that NACODS, which represents the colliery overmen, deputies and shotfirers who have been responsible for safety so


successfully all this time, is taking the Government to court because it believes that the regulations breach the basic law?

Mr. Forsyth: I can confirm that the TUC representative did not press for a vote on the matter at the final meeting. I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman take the line that he has taken this afternoon. I congratulate the Health and Safety Commission on putting the interests of safety ahead of the interests of trade unions and other lobbies that have put across a particular view. If we accepted the views expressed by NACODS and the NUM, we would have to believe that every other union and professional institution involved in the industry either has got it wrong or simply has no interest in the safety of miners in Britain. Only NACODS and the NUM have spotted that
These regulations would push our standards down to third world standards",
as the general secretary of NACODS described the regulations. That is in contrast to the view of the Health and Safety Commission.
I wonder what is the real reason why Opposition Members are getting so excited.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: If I may make a proposition, I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to knock it down. I wonder what is the real reason for NACODS and NUM opposition. It certainly cannot be safety, because the Health and Safety Commission would not submit regulations that reduced safety standards. The truth is that, as Opposition Members well know, NACODS sees the proposals on supervision and inspection, which the Health and Safety Commission believes essential for better health and safety for miners underground—

Mr. Michael Clapham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I shall not give way until I have developed this point, and I promised that I would give way to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) first.
Opposition Members may not wish to hear this, but it is important that the House should be aware of why NACODS is opposed to the proposals. The truth is that NACODS sees the proposals on supervision and inspection as a threat to its monopolistic hold over pit deputies. That is the root of its objection. Before the regulations were introduced—the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not seem to realise that they were in force—mines could not be worked without a deputy being present. Of course, all deputies are members of NACODS.

Mr. Barron: The Minister asked why Opposition Members were worried about the regulations. He seemed to imply that we were after protecting some trade unions or trade union rights. Let me tell him that I spent 20 years working under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 as an underground electrician. If I had not had the protection and independence that the statute gave me, on occasions I would have had to do things that people asked me to do even though I deemed it unsafe in that instance.
We and people in the industry are concerned that the Minister proposes to take away statutory rights that people have had for safety and production reasons, and divide people. I believe—leaving aside any coal industry politics —that it is a backward step for safety in Britain's mines.
If my memory serves me well, every change of regulation that has taken place in the coal industry this century has happened through consensus. The Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that we cannot get consensus for the changes from people who work underground in those dangerous conditions. I think that that is a precedent which no Government should accept in an industry such as coal mining.

Mr. Forsyth: The Health and Safety Commission proceeds by consensus. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of safety and I accept his experience. I should have thought, therefore, that he would welcome the regulations, which, for the first time, place a duty on all management in the mines to put safety ahead of every other matter.

Mr. Eric Illsley: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I shall reply to the hon. Member for Rother Valley first. NACODS is worried because it perceives a threat to its membership. If one looks at the position from the point of view of what is happening in the mines, however, there still needs to be a minimum level of qualification, because the changes will simply mean that someone might be called a manager or a supervisor. NACODS feels that its position as the deputies' union is under threat. It is not the members' health and safety that it is concerned about; it is merely the self-interest of the union. The health of the union, not the safety of the members, is uppermost in its mind.

Mr. John Cummings: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I make no apologies for speaking with passion and concern about an industry in which I worked for 29 years and where one leaves so much of oneself behind and so many fellow colleagues have suffered accident, serious injury or death. That is why we speak with passion.
The Minister should understand that collieries are deeper and machinery is more powerful than in the past, and there is pressure, not just from the colliery manager, but from the silhouettes in Hobart house with their computers, who, at times, are aware of breakdowns before the colliery manager.
The pressures on management and workmen are now so intense that we should seek to strengthen the present regulations. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I was an electrician underground and many was the occasion when I had recourse to the miners' regulations in the top pocket of my waistcoat against the under-manager, the manager and the group manager. That protection will be removed. It is a detrimental step; a step back to the dark ages.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not only express my remarks to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but I make the point that nine hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye during the short debate and if we continue to have long interventions some will not be successful.

Mr. Forsyth: I agreed with everything that the hon. Gentleman said until he neared the end of his remarks. It cannot be right, given what he describes—an industry which is deeper and which has new technology—to depend on regulations that were first formulated in the year when


I was born. They are out of date. They need to be renewed and improved and that is why the Health and Safety Executive has done so.

Mr. Illsley: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I have been very generous in giving way and I heard what Mr. Deputy Speaker said about the importance of making progress.
It was right for the Health and Safety Executive and the Commission to ignore the attempts that were made to maintain a legislative framework that was more suited to life about 30 years ago. I was astonished by the attitude of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. After all, the work of the commission and executive, which the Labour party set up when it was in government, has been to modernise health and safety legislation, replacing prescriptive regulations with modern target-setting regulations and approved codes of practice. They are doing that in the mining industry, yet Opposition Members attack the Health and Safety Commission for doing precisely what the Labour Government set it up to achieve.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister understand that we are not talking about bureaucratic neatness? Procedures that might be successful on the surface in other industries and have been spread, rightly, by the Health and Safety Executive and people involved in safety are welcome. However, as somebody who claims to be a Conservative, the Minister ought to be able to see some merit in leaving alone a system that is the safest in the world. Why does he want to change it?

Mr. Forsyth: Because the Health and Safety Commission, a tripartite body set up by a Labour Government, has recommended that, in its view, it is necessary to make changes in order to improve safety in the mines. It would be an irresponsible Minister who ignored that and it is an irresponsible Opposition who seek to frustrate that process.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talks about practicalities. What will the regulations do? MASHAM—the management and administration of safety and health at mines—will require each mine to have a management structure that is suitable for its circumstances, and the circumstances vary between mines. The previous legislation, so beloved of the hon. Gentleman, did not even require mines to have a developed management structure. A mine must have sufficient properly qualified and competent managers and every one of them must give precedence to health, safety and welfare over all other duties. How can the hon. Gentleman be against that?
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was quick to say to the newspapers at the end of August that there is a conflict between productivity and safety. Does he not realise that an efficient mine is a safe mine and that safety demands efficiency in production? Does he not realise that MASHAM integrates responsibility for production and safety at every level far more securely than ever before?

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is not the Minister aware that in countries where regulations of that character are in operation safety levels are much lower than in the United Kingdom and accident levels are much higher? Why change something that is seen to be working

effectively? Why give instructions to the HSE to come up with regulations that may be internationally compatible, but which do not necessarily provide us with any greater safety than at present?

Mr. Forsyth: I am not aware of any such instructions. The hon. Gentleman should know that the Health and Safety Executive began in 1983 the process of modernising the health and safety legislation for mines. The hon. Gentleman has not answered the point, which is that everyone involved in the management of mines under these regulations will have a specific duty for safety. MASHAM strengthens the requirements for thorough supervision of everyone in all areas of the mine below ground.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned that there are more accidents away from the coal face than at the coal face. He was right. For the first time, these regulations require fully adequate arrangements to be made for the supervision of workers away from the coal face where those accidents occur. I listened in disbelief as the hon. Gentleman sought to argue against them. The regulations require all parts of the mine below ground to be divided into suitable clearly defined districts of a size that allows adequate inspection. MASHAM allows the functions of supervision and inspection to be carried out by the same person or by different people and—

Mr. Dobson: Exactly.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that allowing supervision and inspection to be carried out by different people is a bad thing. There may be good reasons to prevent one person from performing both roles if it means leaving workers unsupervised while carrying out statutory inspection duties. Is the hon. Gentleman honestly saying that it is safer to allow a situation where someone may be off supervising and is, therefore, not available for inspection? Of course it is not. Common sense demands that there should be flexibility and that is what the regulations provide.

Mr. Illsley: The Minister seems to have missed the fact that in the role of deputy, supervision and inspection are combined. A deputy has the right and, in some cases, the statutory duty to stop a mine if safety is threatened. If supervision and inspection are separated—we will see a situation in which an inspector is subservient to a supervisor—the supervisor will be paid on a production bonus and it will not be in that supervisor's interest to stop production in the mine if safety is threatened, despite the representations of the inspector. That is the key issue in all these regulations. It is not the districts and the deputies, but the role of the deputy in safety and the statutory obligation placed on him, which the regulations would remove.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman sounds as if he believes that a deputy is not responsible to the management. What the hon. Gentleman does not take on board, and where the flaw in his argument lies, is the distinction between the duties of the inspector and those of the supervisor. Under the regulations, the supervisor will be under a duty to ensure that the paramount priority is health and safety in the mines.

Mr. Illsley: It is all to do with production.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position that it is to do with production, but the


regulations make it a requirement for all management to make health and safety its foremost priority. That is where the hon. Gentleman's argument falls to pieces.

Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister aware that in 1988–89 the Select Committee on Energy considered the MASHAM regulations in a report on mining safety? A document, issued by British Coal, entitled "The Management of New Mines Working Party", refers to the separation of production and supervision. The working party was worried that it would not be able to get people to be district managers under the MASHAM regulations because they would be required to have a deputy's ticket. It stated:
This might counter some of the benefits of separating safety and production.
One man will therefore be responsible for production and one man for inspection, and inspection will be subservient to production.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is merely repeating the same points. What he should recognise is that the regulations make everyone involved in production in the mine responsible for health and safety. The regulations do not preclude one man or woman being responsible for both functions.
The hon. Gentleman did not deal with my key point, which is that there may be very good reasons against one person performing both roles—for example, if that means leaving workers unsupervised. Surely he does not believe that such practice is sensible and should be required by statute. The key point is that both functions should be carried out by suitably qualified and competent people. Those responsible for inspection and supervision in a coal mine must hold the minimum qualification of a deputy.
I was reeling off the list of positive benefits of the MASHAM regulations, which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not recognise. They improve provisions for the installation and maintenance of plant and equipment. They require managers to ensure that all plant and equipment is safely installed and commissioned. They strengthen the requirements for qualified—

Mr. Barron: The regulations always did that.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but we have had to have exemptions from the existing regulations in order to allow new equipment to come into the collieries.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras scoffs at the changes, but it seems to me that regulations that strengthen the requirement for qualified first-aiders—as these do—should be welcomed and not rubbished as they have been. The regulations double the ratio of first-aiders to employees underground.
The hon. Gentleman is always going on about contractors. Why did he miss out the fact that, to enable the mine manager to carry out his statutory duties, these regulations will, for the first time, require contractors to co-operate with him and comply with his instructions?
The regulations are an opportunity to ensure that those who work in mines benefit from a modern, target-setting health and safety system, which other industries have enjoyed during recent years. Those who wish to overturn the regulations seek to prevent the change which would result in miners being more safe and secure, and managers more accountable for safety. They seek to lock the industry into a 1950s time warp. I commend the regulations to the House.

Sir Harold Walker: The regulations have their roots in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which, as one who shared the responsibility of taking it through the House, I remember well. Any pride that I had in announcing what I thought and still think is, on the whole, a dramatic leap forward in the provision of health and safety in mines has been severely dented by our proceedings today. The Act was passed on a consensual basis, but not without a great deal of controversy between Government Departments. One of the controversies that dominated the proceedings was precisely the issue that we are discussing today—the procedure that is being used.
There are two matters before the House: the technical merits of the proposals and the way in which the House handles those proposals. I do not pretend to be sufficiently competent to comment on the technical merits—I shall leave that to other more experienced hon. Friends. However, significant numbers of people in my constituency who have had experience of the coal mining industry at all levels have expressed concern about the harmful effects of the regulations once they are implemented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was one of the participants in the debates in 1974. He rightly recalled the way in which on Second Reading and in Committee my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Employment, Michael Foot, said that he had received representations from all the mining unions about the way in which the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act might empower the body that was being set up to act in a manner that would weaken the prevailing health and safety standards.
To convey the flavour of the debate in Committee, I shall refer to the former Member for Hamilton, Alex Wilson, whom many of us will recall with affection and respect and who later became my Parliamentary Private Secretary. On behalf of the National Union of Mineworkers, he was persistent in expressing its anxiety that the powers that we were giving to the Health and Safety Commission to make regulations might be exercised in the way it seems to be exercised this afternoon—marking a regression from the prevailing standards, especially those embodied in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. I can remember replying to him in Committee on 30 April 1974. I said:
I turn now to the basic point that I understand my hon. Friend to make, namely that while he accepts that the Bill is a good thing for all other industries, somehow it should not be applied to the coal mining industry because it might lead to a regression from the high standards which he thinks have been achieved.
I went on to say that there would be change
only after the fullest consultation when my hon. Friend's trade union sees and accepts in the course of the consultation ways and means of improving and strengthening the present provisions in a way which will satisfy both my hon. Friend and myself, and in a way that I should expect to see the industry proceed.
Later at that sitting, I quoted from the letter that Michael Foot sent to the NUM seeking to assuage the anxieties that it had expressed. He wrote to give assurances
on two matters which you regard as being of crucial importance. The first of these concerns the statutory standards of protection for mineworkers which are at present laid down in the Mines and Quarries Acts, and in their supporting regulations. As I explained, the Bill repeals none of this legislation. All of the present statutory standards will remain in force until replaced by equally or more effective provisions, which would be made under the wide regulation-making power contained in the Bill. The object of any such revised provisions would be to seek improvements—which indeed is the object of the Bill as a whole.


The letter continued:
All regulations under the new Act will be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the usual way.
My right hon. Friend meant in the usual way that had applied up to the present time. "The usual way" is now rather different.
The Bill had the support of all parties in the House. It had been prepared by the former Secretary of State and we inherited it and made some minor changes that the previous Secretary of State accepted. The Opposition at that time was led by Lord Whitelaw, then the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. On behalf of the Conservative party, he said:
I want to see whether I can do something to allay the anxieties of the hon. Member for Hamilton".
He went on to say that, when he was the Minister in a previous Government, he
heard all the representations then made by the National Union of Mineworkers. Like the Under-Secretary, I believe that these fears are—perhaps groundless is the wrong word—but I believe that they will be found in the long run to be ill founded … The hon. Member for Hamilton made another remark on which I hope I can give him some reassurance, if any words of mine can do that. He suggested that if this proposal in the Bill went through as it stood, there might at some time in the future be a Government—presumably he was thinking of a Conservative Government—who through this Bill might make an attack on the safety provisions in the mining industry.
My hon. Friends and I fear that that moment has arrived. The attack about which the Lord Whitelaw sought to give assurance is occurring today. Lord Whitelaw continued:
I wish to give the hon. Member assurance, as one who has in the past had considerable interest in safety, health and welfare, from the time of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, that these matters have always been regarded entirely as non-political. They certainly would be in the future. I can only give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I certainly would be no party to doing anything which would in any way undermine the exceptionally good work of the mines inspectorate, the way in which the inspectorate has sought to do their best in the mining industry, and equally the strong support—which has been very important—which they received from the National Union of Mineworkers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 30 April 1974; c. 7–10.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South will recall the manner in which that comment was welcomed as an assurance from the Government that we would proceed in such matters only with full support from those who work in the industry.
The Committee went on to establish assurances in a more specific and formal manner and, because of the debates that we had and the anxieties that were expressed, we wrote into section 1 of the 1974 Act that
the regulations, orders and other instruments in force under those enactments"—
were to be—
progressively replaced by a system of regulations and approved codes of practice operating in combination with the other provisions of this Part and designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare established by or under those enactments.
That was not a piece of parliamentary embroidery. Those words were deliberately chosen to reflect the views of the Government of the day and were fully supported by every party in the House—the changes would be only those that would maintain or improve prevailing safety conditions.
The Minister may say that the proposals meet precisely that desire, but that is in conflict with all the views that have been expressed by people who—unlike the hon. Gentleman and I—work or have worked in the coal

industry. Interventions have come from the coalfields of Hendon; I prefer to speak from the coalfields of Yorkshire. I have not been a coal miner, but I am prepared to listen to those who are or have been miners. I only wish that the Government would do so. The Minister says that the Health and Safety Commission has produced the proposals, but my understanding is that the trade union representatives on the Health and Safety Commission have the gravest reservations.
I feel somewhat personally tarnished in the light of the work that I put into health and safety legislation and the assurances and commitments that we gave with the full support of the House. I am sure that Lord Whitelaw, if he has the opportunity to read our proceedings, will feel equally sad that there has been a resiling from the commitments that all of us gave. Today we face a prostitution of the powers that are contained in the 1974 Act. My hon. Friends and I are worried that the proposals are merely paving the path to privatisation.
I should have thought that the experience of Bilsthorpe would give the Minister cause to delay the proposals. I ask him to withdraw the regulations and to consult those whose jobs and livelihoods in the industry and whose families' well-being are at stake. The Minister should consult them and, if they share his view, we may take a different attitude. I very much doubt whether he will get support for the views which he has presented to the House today. I hope that he will take the regulations away and think again.

Mr. Richard Alexander: The House will have listened to the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker) with great interest. He commands great respect in the House, although the conclusions of Conservative Members may differ from his. I apologise for the fact that I have a Select Committee meeting running at the present time. With the leave of the House, I hope to join the meeting shortly after I sit down. I hope that my apparent discourtesy will be understood.
I sometimes do not know who advises Ministers and Departments about their public relations and their presentation of policy. As a Government, we should have the best, rather than the worst, presentation. If there is anyone out there who is supposed to be like a bird sitting on the Minister's shoulder and telling him the best time at which and the best way in which to present policy, there must have been some dereliction of duty in this case.
The House rose on 27 July after one of the most difficult ever public relations presentations in the coal mining industry when, as we all know, 31 pits had been proposed for closure the previous October. The day after the House rose, the regulations were made and just over a week later they were presented to the House when Parliament had gone to the seaside for its summer break.
I tell the House and my hon. Friend the Minister, if he does not already know, that there are people outside who doubt the Government's commitment to a thriving and profitable coal industry. As my hon. Friend will know, the young bride said to her husband the day following her wedding, "Jock, I didnae ken." He replied, "Well, Maggie, you ken noo." I say to my hon. Friend, "Michael, you ken noo."
I accept that, as my hon. Friend will agree, the regulations are part of a general review of mines and quarries regulations which was put in hand by the Health


and Safety Commission some years ago. There was no reason in common sense or in common humanity why the regulations could not have been laid before the House a week before it rose for the recess or a week after it returned. As it was, the worst possible interpretation was put on the timing by those outside who took an interest in the matter. I am anxious to hear my hon. Friend's explanation.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have no bird sitting on my shoulder that I can blame. The regulations were not laid earlier because there was a change of ministerial responsibilities and, before I agreed to lay the regulations, I insisted that I had undertakings from the Health and Safety Commission that it would maintain and improve safety in mines. As a result of the delay arising from my insistence, it was not possible to lay the regulations until the end of the Session.
My hon. Friend asked why we did not wait until now to lay the regulations. It was the view of the Health and Safety Commission that the regulations should be in force by 1 October. I felt obliged, given the commission's view that the regulations were important from the point of view of safety, to act accordingly. I appreciate that that has caused criticism and difficulty. However, we expect people in mines to make safety their paramount consideration. The same should apply to Ministers.

Mr. Alexander: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his explanation.
There is a further difficulty. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which I serve under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is in his place waiting to make his contribution, has had no opportunity because of the timing to consider the regulations. We do not consider regulations on their merits; we consider whether they are intra vires of the parent statute or whether there are unusual uses of powers. It would have been helpful if the Committee could have had that opportunity. I do not wish to make the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South. He is the Chairman of the Committee and I shall let him elaborate on that point. Despite my hon. Friend's explanation, I think that, on a subject as emotional as mining safety, there was a little left to be desired in terms of timing and presentation.
Worse was to come. A couple of weeks after the regulations were laid, the Bilsthorpe colliery disaster occurred. It took place a couple of miles from my constituency boundary and that is why I have a particular interest in it. I see one or two hon. Members from neighbouring constituencies in their places today. It was one of the worst recent mining disasters and its reverberations are still being felt in north Nottinghamshire and beyond.
I believe that the regulations, which will require full supervision of everyone everywhere in the mines below ground, are beneficial. However, there is still deep uncertainty, and we had discussions about it this afternoon, about precisely what happened at Bilsthorpe and why. I suggest that it was unwise to plough on at that time with regulations that amend the regulations on safety and health in the mines without Parliament being able to debate them. That is my main point.
As the House can imagine and as happened today, the Government's political opponents, especially at local level, made big capital out of the fears that existed. Today, they

made similarly heavy weather of the regulations. I make no criticism of that because as the Opposition it is their right and it is proper that they should do so even if, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central, we may reach somewhat different conclusions on this side of the House.
Having criticised the timing of the regulations, I must say that I do not think that they are as harmful as has been suggested this afternoon. I listened to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Although he said much, he did not really discuss the regulations themselves. I have listened carefully to the whole debate and I believe that that is a flaw in the Opposition's arguments so far.

Mr. Clapham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that absolute duties, as a deputy had under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, are stronger than the duties that arise under the new package, which are far less specific and are general? As a result of the strong and absolute duties under the 1954 Act, the deputy, with his combination of responsibilities for safety and supervision, was able to ensure that British pits were the safest in the world.

Mr. Alexander: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was just going to come to that precise point. I accept that he is an expert in the industry. My reading of the regulations is that each mine must have a management structure with suitably qualified people who will give precedence to health, safety and welfare above all other duties. That must be a step forward and not a step back, despite what the hon. Gentleman says.
We have two large codes of practice. They are not flimsy documents; they are detailed and the duties are specific on safety, health and first aid—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may scoff. As I said, they are entitled to make the worst of these matters. Conservative Members are equally entitled to be positive about the proposals.
The lack of reduction of the powers of intervention by the inspector of mines is important. There is no diminution of his powers. He will continue to have all the powers originally given to him, or them, by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. That is where I would have disagreed with the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central.

Mr. Cryer: Is not it true that, in the statutory instrument, the obligation on people to carry out statutory duties is qualified by the phrase, "so far as is practicable"? Does not that phrase have a legal definition in court actions for compensation, to the effect that an employer or owner who says that the cost is too high is justified in not applying those safety standards? Therefore, is not that a reduction in the standard from the absolute duty that care shall be provided?

Mr. Alexander: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not reach that conclusion when I read elsewhere in the regulations that there must be present everywhere and at all times someone suitably qualified whose paramount duty is to ensure that safety is the first consideration.

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that at present any district underground must have a suitably trained person—in this case a deputy—who is capable of and trained in taking readings for levels of gas. Under the regulations, it will be apparent that whole districts will be without a trained person in charge who is capable of and trained in taking readings for gas.

Mr. Alexander: I was not aware of that. I am still not sure that will be the case, but that will be for the Minister to argue. I cannot deal precisely with that point.
Having read the regulations, and despite my criticism of the timing, I do not see that they represent a diminution in standards of safety in mines. If I thought that they did—I hope that the Opposition will give me credit for this in view of my interest in the coal mining industry—I would not not vote for them at any price. I am not a party hack. I am a party man, but I am also a man who looks after his constituents, who, in this case, are those in the mining communities of north Nottinghamshire.
My concern has been with timing and the method of introduction, which, like so much that has happened to the coal mining industry in the past year, has left much to be desired. I wish that the Government could have found a more sensible way of introducing the regulations, and had been a little more sensitive about their timing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the two hours available for the rest of the debate, no fewer than nine hon. Members, including Front Benchers, hope to catch my eye. If hon. Members co-operate by making short speeches, all hon. Members might be successful.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I shall endeavour to be brief.
The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) addressed the issue of timing. I hope that he will accept that timing is extremely important and that it is not only a matter of cynicism; it is a matter of mismanagement and incompetence, although it could be interpreted as cynicism. Two particular points of timing will not be lost even on people with no real connection with the mining industry: first, major changes in working practices underground were published the week after the House rose for the summer recess and were implemented before we had an opportunity to debate them; and, secondly, in the Queen's Speech next month the Government will introduce measures for the privatisation of the coal industry. Those factors will not be lost on anyone. What is the prime motivation for those changes? Can we be absolutely sure that it is simply a totally objective and right moment to introduce new working practices that affect the operation of mines? I will not follow the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who expressed his view on that in his inimitable style. The Minister cannot be surprised that people make deductions from that coincidence of timing.
Another matter of some concern is that, within the same period, we had the Bilsthorpe colliery disaster. As one who is not as well informed or as closely involved as other hon. Members, I felt that the safety inspectors were remarkably quick to deduce that the bolting mechanism was not the source of the problem. I do not question their integrity and am not in any position to comment on them, but the speed with which they made their statement demonstrated one thing clearly to me, if I had not known it already: there clearly is great concern about the practice among the people who work underground. That concern cannot lightly be put aside. It is not right to introduce measures in

which mineworkers—who are supposed to be protected by them—do not have confidence. That is a matter of extreme importance and it is one that we should take on board.
The specific point as I understand it—perhaps the key point—is the role of the deputy manager in determining the safe operation of the pit and his authority to stop the process if he believes that that is justified. First, it is apparent that deputy managers spend more of their time underground. Secondly, they are specifically charged with safety as their prime consideration.
Under the new regulations, it seems to me that the only person with authority to stop the process is the manager of the pit, who, in most cases, will not be underground. The only responsibility that any other operative has is to report a breach of safety if that occurs. One needs a much quicker line of response. That point—I am sorry that the Minister is not listening—seems to be an inherent sign of a change for the worse. Under the new regulations, the ability to halt the process because of a safety risk has been removed further from the process than was the case under the old regulations. I should like the Minister to answer that point at the end of the debate. Unless he can satisfy me that that is not the case, that example will be a clear indication of new regulations weakening existing safety standards.
I should have thought that it might be appropriate, if one were interested in strengthening regulations, to say that, at all times, there must be someone underground who has the authority to override the process for safety considerations. That would be an improvement on existing regulations.

Mr. Etherington: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I, too, shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Like many people, I spent 21 years working underground on the coal face. I was a fitter. Under the 1954 regulations, I had the power—under section 81 of the Mines and Quarries Act, which talks about machinery being free of patent defect—to stop any machinery that I did not think was operating properly. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: I would no longer have that power. At the time that I was working, the colliery manager could not override my decision, nor could the chairman of the British Coal Board at Hobart house, because I was carrying out my duties under the statute that was laid down in the House. If I were a fitter now and worked on the coal face, I would no longer have that power and could be overruled.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing a point from a period of specific personal knowledge.
I should like to take up a point that the Minister made. The point is not entirely surprising but is questionable. Let us keep the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers—NACODS—and the National Union of Mineworkers out of it, just to make it less sensitive. The Minister seemed to imply that NACODS' reservations about the regulations were entirely to do with its concern about its membership and its role as a trade union. That is unworthy of him. I do not think that it is right to suggest that a trade union with that degree of specialism is not capable of being persuaded—and needs to be persuaded if the new regulations are to work.
Even if the regulations are good in law, principle and practice, if the people who are to operate and benefit from them have no confidence in them, their morale will be adversely affected. No Minister should be satisfied with


that as a way to advance safety and working in the mines. The Minister accuses the trade unions of being motivated only by the recruitment and retention of members. That invites the counter-argument that managers are, by definition, concerned only with production and profitability, which also gives rise to the possibility of compromise and conflict of interest.
It is essential that we strike the right balance in safety matters. Certainly, we want to allow people to run viable and profitable pits, but we want those pits to be run so that the safety of those who are expected to do the work at the most dangerous end of the job is not compromised. That is the responsibility of the Minister and it is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, and it does not seem to me that they have achieved the degree of consensus that would justify the claim that this is the right time at which to introduce the present regulations.
I should like to draw attention to one or two good points in the regulations. In particular, it is essential that a pit manager should be allowed to manage only one pit, and it is good that that has been written into the provisions. It is important, too, that the pit manager should have the right to challenge the pit owner in the interests of safety. I have a slight reservation about that provision, however, because it is possible for the pit owner also to be the pit manager. Who would provide the element of intervention in such circumstances?
The Minister reminded us that the original regulations date back to 1908; that regulations have been introduced in the intervening period, in 1947 and 1974; and that we are talking about a process of continuous change. I do not think that any hon. Member is frightened of change or believes that all the regulations are wholly unacceptable and that there is not a case for modernising and updating the procedures. I hope that the Minister will recognise, however, that there are one or two factors that suggest that the regulations would weaken safety rather than strengthen it, which is crucial, and that his timing is extremely suspect. The Minister cannot proceed simply on the ground that he has a majority in the House and disregard the damaging effect of introducing safety regulations that do not have the confidence of those working in the industry. So far, he has failed to secure that confidence, and I urge him not to force the provisions through until he has won the industry over.

Mr. Michael Alison: Many of those who are laymen when it comes to the technicalities of these complicated and important matters—that includes most people who will be following the debate as well as many taking part in it—will feel that my hon. Friend the Minister made a fair point when he said that the origin or provenance of the regulations was an expert body with an absolutely impeccable reputation and pedigree—the Health and Safety Commission and its Executive. I am glad, too, that my hon. Friend emphasised that the consideration of possible beneficial changes in mine safety regulations goes back a long way.
My hon. Friend reasonably suggested that, given the list of contributing members, the proposition that the Health and Safety Executive or Commission could in some way have been beguiled, infiltrated or corrupted by the influence of Ministers and Tory policy fades into nonentity

the moment it is made. The Health and Safety Commission would have faced many resignations and would never have been able to present serious proposals to the Minister or the House if there were any sense in which it was the kept woman of a Tory Government or a Tory Cabinet. It was manifestly doing its own job in an effective and serious-minded way and, although these are highly controversial and delicate matters, it has produced the specific and agreed recommendations and ideas that we are debating today. My hon. Friend was more than reasonable in emphasising that.
I have listened with great interest to the debate, and with even greater interest to the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker)—at whose feet I have sat in Committee and with whom I have debated—and, in doing so, have picked up nuances and detailed ideas about and insights into industry that I could have picked up nowhere else. It seems to me—again, as a layman—that the Opposition are perhaps trying to prove too much by suggesting that everything that is in place now has the quality of the law of the Medes and the Persians and should not be interfered with, touched, modified or improved in any way. Opposition Members swing from that proposition—which is not a convincing one—to the proposition that everything that we are considering today is poison in every root and branch. Both propositions are unacceptable.
Safety regulations have to be changed, improved and modernised—following a lengthy period of consideration, consultation, submission and debate—as part of the evolution and modernisation of any industry. I am thinking in particular of the railways and of the air transport industry, in which changes have had to be made to take account of considerations of passenger time and of new machinery and processes.
I remember some of the features of the old safety regulations in the days when steam operated on the railways. With the fundamental changes in the mechanical processes by which the railways operate, all that has had to go. Similarly, today's pits are unrecognisable. I speak with some experience of the machinery used and the activities that take place in the Selby complex of mines. It seems eminently reasonable to me that there should be some attempt to move with the times and that safety procedures should be updated by a serious professional body such as the HSE and its Commission. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for placing so much emphasis on the origin and provenance of the regulations.
My hon. Friend will understand, however, that changes can give rise to anxiety, especially among ordinary rank-and-file miners and individuals engaged in coal mining, although not necessarily at the coal face— especially given that they are bombarded with allegations of nefarious intent or distorted purpose, which, for people engaged in the day-to-day activities at the coal face, can be disturbing and unnerving.
I have received detailed representations from a number of my constituents who work in or near the Selby complex of mines. I hope that my hon. Friend will find time to address himself once more to the delicate subject of the possibility, at least, of a division of responsibility. I want to quote from a quite articulate letter from a NACODS official in my constituency:
We also fail to see where the Health and Safety Executive"—


the official at least gives credit to where the idea originated—
have improved or bettered existing legislation by splitting the dual duties of pit inspection from supervision, which today are undertaken by the single pit deputy, replacing this with, first, a person doing inspections and, secondly, a command supervisor.
The official goes on to make this trenchant and important point:
By doing this, they are confusing who has total and absolute control should an emergency occur.
I should like my hon. Friend to address himself to what would happen in the very rare and extremely undesirable event of a real underground emergency. We all know that different voices giving different orders from different quarters can be desperately hazardous and can result in a failure to move whatever action is necessary at that moment in a precisely defined and necessarily correct direction.
I know that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure me to some extent by referring to the fact that the regulations allow the functions of supervision and inspection to be carried out by the same person or by different people; they introduce the dual option. It is clearly most important that that function, whether dual or in a single hand, should be carried out by qualified and competent people. Will my hon. Friend assure me that full thought has been given to the hazard that might arise, especially in an emergency, if the option for a dual hat between supervision and inspection applies in a pit?
A constituent goes so far to reinforce the idea of the single deputy as to point out that, at present, an identified person, a named individual, has immediate charge of men and operations and concern consequently arises over any step in the direction of less identity, more diffuse responsibility and less capacity to be able to pinpoint the person who carries the can.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is an expert in this area and that he will have been briefed adequately by the Health and Safety Executive. It must have had good reason for giving the option of abandoning the single mandate and moving to the possible option of locating responsibility for supervision and inspection under different heads. If he can reassure us on that point and refer back to the considered view of the executive and why it is confident that it is for the best, I and my constituents who have made representations to me would be much reassured and would believe that the regulations stand a better chance of gaining acceptance and confidence in the mining industry.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has done the House a service because his question to the Minister provided reason for the Minister's apology. The National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers certainly should receive an apology from the Minister for his unworthy comments. The association's objection stemmed from the point that the right hon. Member for Selby put to the Minister. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation because during the months of consultation that very point has been at the heart of NACODS' rejection of the proposals.
There are few pits now and there may be fewer still in a few months' time, but there will still be pits and there will be new ones and unmothballed ones when it is recognised that what has been done was foolish and that we should not lock away an important and fortunate national resource.
The regulations are designed for the time when pits have been privatised. Their purpose is to make the industry more appropriate for privatisation by weakening existing legislation, which is why NACODS and most people who have an interest in the industry oppose them. The safety priority is being weakened. Yes, a manager will have to run a pit effectively and safely, but the Minister did not point out the qualification
so far as is practicable",
and that will cover an enormous amount.
The same attitude is not evident among Tories as when Winston Churchill spoke about the need for statutory qualified underground officials. The regulations provide for supervisors, who, as the right hon. Member for Selby pointed out, will not have the traditional statutory powers that have saved untold numbers of lives in pits since the law was made.
Representatives of the South African mining industry are visiting London today; indeed, one of them has been in this building. They are here to look at our safety arrangements for mines because they recognise the need to promote mine safety in their country. What are they to take back with them—the practices and regulations that hitherto applied, or this wretched, shabby lot that we are debating today? I know what advice any responsible person would give them, and I hope that it is the advice that NACODS is giving.
A few years ago it was suggested that colliery deputies should be fully included in the management structure of the coal industry, solely oriented within the production system. NACODS quite properly said that its obligations to safety meant that it could not accept that other function because safety had to be paramount. Of course there must be regard for production, and underground officials played a significant part in the immense achievement of increasing productivity by 36 per cent. in the last year. They did so on the understanding that precedents for safety would remain and that safety would continue to be their prime duty. That duty is weakened by the regulations and it is unwise and wrong for the overriding priority for safety in the mining industry to be removed, as it will be when the underground supervisor will have to report a hazard rather than respond to it.
The regulations are not only defective in character but, as the Minister confessed, have been furtively introduced. Interestingly, they are statutory instrument No. 1987 and were laid with orders such as No. 1930 and No. 1950, suggesting quite a substantial delay, when they could have been introduced, despite the ministerial changes, before the House rose for the recess. It is sad that the matter should have been so delayed, but it shows the arrogance of office to which Shakespeare referred.
British Coal, too, deserves criticism. Those responsible at Hobart house showed their disdain for Parliament when they decided that the regulations should be implemented on 1 October—before the House resumed. I said in the House last Monday that British Coal had tried to deny my suggestion that it was contemptuous of Parliament in 1989. I still think that it was contemptuous of Parliament in 1989, but it has certainly been contemptuous of Parliament in 1993, and it may have been so with the approval and


admiration of the Minister because I do not believe that it would have decided to announce the implementation early in August if it had not first consulted the Department. British Coal and Ministers have revealed their contempt for Parliament and for history.
Hon. Members who represent the older coalfields—Durham, Wales, Scotland, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Northumberland—will be aware of the many traces of the past in their constituencies. There are memorials on which there are lists of names of hundreds of people who died in colliery catastrophes. There will be another list of names tonight—of hon. Members who either could not come into the Chamber to listen to a debate on matters of life and death, of hon. Members who popped in and out, or of hon. Members who allowed themselves to be beguiled into the Government Lobby.
The number of people who died in major tragedies was dwarfed by the number of men, and often children, who died in ones and twos in days when it was not even thought necessary to have inquests when people were killed down a pit. Reaction in the House and outside to those horrors led to the introduction of the regulations that are now being scrapped. The Minister fails to understand—I wish that his colleague, the Minister for Energy, was here—that the arguments that the Government are now advancing to defend their regulations were used in Parliament and outside to oppose the safety regulations 90 or 100 years ago.
I heard the Minister say on television the other day that there had been long periods of consultation about the regulations—consultation with the miners, British Coal and the Health and Safety Executive. It is true that the consultations lasted for some years, but no one appeared to advise the Minister that what he and his colleagues were doing was preposterous. The Minister and his colleagues have been saying that the arrangements under the order would be a vast improvement: there would not be one man with a statutory responsibility for safety—the colliery deputy—because everyone would have responsibility. That was the very argument used against the appointment of the deputy with a statutory obligation.
I wish that Ministers did not have such contempt for history. They are very good at accountancy, making money and beguiling the electorate with the assistance of a servile press which may not even report our argument tonight, but they do not understand the mining industry, which they are now embarrassing, or the country, which they are misruling.

Mr. Illsley: The Minister said that the regulations were being introduced because of inadequacies in the legislation. Is my hon. Friend aware of any such inadequacies?

Mr. Hardy: No, I am not, but I shall not detain the House for too long.
I have been a Member of Parliament for a long time. I have met some great people, many who may become great, many more who think that they will be great and some who think that they are great but are not. One man who was a considerable source of inspiration to me, although he never claimed to be great, and for whom I had enormous respect was my father, a colliery deputy. He was not an especially articulate man, but he was very honest. Being brought up in his home, I learnt certain values. I learnt why he was respected in our community. He was

not a boss's man, but he was concerned about production and believed that a man should have a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. He was still popular because his men, of whom there were many in those days, knew that he was skilled in the ways of the mine and that he was honest and would not allow corners to be cut or their lives to be put at risk.
In the past, the role of the honest colliery deputy was important and, but for the shysters on the Government Benches who are giving away the mining industry, it would be important in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but perhaps he would like to rephrase his comment.

Mr. Hardy: I should have thought that the word "shysters" as applied collectively to the current Administration was entirely appropriate. However, I do not wish to incur your disapproval in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so if I can replace the word "shysters" with the words "this group of venal men", I am happy to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "And women."] And women, although the former right hon. Member for Finchley has departed.
The serious point is that men such as my father saved many lives. They were able to do so because of their experience and knowledge of the pit and because of their statutory capacity. That capacity placed a considerable duty on their shoulders but that duty is to be taken away. Without the capacity to fulfil a statutory regulation, not even the most honest supervisor will be able to act to save lives.
The right hon. Member for Selby was right to ask about safety and responsibility. The arrangements will weaken the capacity which has served our industry well, which has made it safe and which has made it a model to which mining industries in other parts of the world can turn to ensure that they have safe arrangements.
The regulations are intended to assist privatisation and profit. [Interruption.] It is no good the Minister shaking his head because we know that the regulations are fitting the industry for the marketplace and the sale room. If that is not so, why did the Minister with responsibility for coal last Wednesday shelter behind the sub judice rule, which apparently does not apply today, and refuse to answer my request for a guarantee that a foreign company, which does not have a good safety record, would not be allowed to buy parts of the British mining industry?
One such company has received 1,474 citations from the American safety inspectorate regarding faults that it had not put right but of which it had been notified over seven or eight years. Are the Government going to allow companies with such records to take over our mining industry? If they do, those companies will do what they like and will shelter behind the phrase
so far as is practicable
which the Minister has provided for them.
Why did the Minister not explain what
so far as is practicable
meant? Does he acknowledge that having such words at the heart of the regulations compels us to ask questions? As I do not believe that the Minister is capable of answering our questions, I trust that I and my colleagues will be joined in the Division by many hon. Members from the smaller parties. I regret that hon. Members from Ulster are not present; they claim to be part of the United Kingdom, so I hope that none of them will join the Government in the


Lobby tonight. If they have an obligation to the rest of the United Kingdom, they should join us. In addition to my colleagues and those in the smaller parties, I hope that the Conservatives who have a conscience and those with constituency obligations to the coalfields will join us because we are sure that our cause is right.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I am sure that hon. Members will not mind if I begin by sending the House's condolences to the wife of David Shelton, aged 31, who was a constituent of mine. He was killed in the Bilsthorpe disaster and lived in Blyth. The disaster has been mentioned many times, but I emphasise the fact that the inquiry was far from satisfactory and I hope that the demands for a further inquiry will be met.
The regulations, which affect safety standards, are clearly related to the privatisation of the industry. There is a strange parallel with the privatisation of prisons because both privatisations involve a strong safety element. Let us consider how the Government approached the privatisation of a part of the prison service. They let Group 4 take control of transferring prisoners to and from the courts. What happened? The people who took on that task did not know a great deal about the job and were spread over the front pages of the newspapers because of their lack of experience in handling prisoners. Indeed, for a while, they became a laughing stock.
The proposals to sell the pits offer a parallel. Private enterprise is to be put in charge of the pits, and the new owners will remove nearly all the safety regulations and run them for their own profit. The prisons were also softened up for privatisation.
The two industries are parallel in the sense that very few people have been in prison and very few have been down a coal mine. The Government, or the Department of Trade and Industry, have consistently reduced the number of prison officers and refused to listen to their good advice. There have been more prison riots, more disturbances and more problems because the Government refused to listen to the people who work at the pit face in the prisons; exactly the same will happen at the pit face down the mines. Very few people have ever been down a coal mine, including Members of Parliament, civil servants or those who live in the neighbourhood, and very few know about the safety standards. How many hon. Members realise what it is like to crawl 200 yds on one's hands and knees in a seam not much higher than a kitchen table, banging one's head every two yards, surrounded by nothing but thick dust and filth, with no light except that from the lamp on one's helmet, and a horrendous coal cutter four or five feet in diameter going at 2,000 revs a minute not two feet from one's hands or face, chopping off coal a tonne at a time?
Men have to work in those horrendous conditions, and all the public have ever seen of them is a film on television. I am a little critical of some of my hon. Friends, many of whom have said that they worked in the pit for 20 or 30 years. Over that time they seem to have become used to those conditions, not realising how revolting such conditions are to the average member of the public, and to the average workman in any other industry. I have never worked down the pit, but my father was a miner, and many

years ago I found out that there are no toilets down a coal mine. Howe many people know that? The miners have to use a shovel for a chamberpot.
There is a saying in the pit that miners, to use biblical terms, "shit on a shovel." They use coal dust for their toilet paper, because there is nowhere to wash their hands. The Minister grins and laughs, and looks surprised. He does not know about that, yet he is the Minister introducing what purport to be health and safety regulations. What sort of health regulations can there be when there are no toilets down the coal mines, and nowhere for a man to wash his hands before he eats his sandwiches during his break? He simply has to throw what is on the shovel on to the outbye and let the roof fall in on it. He cannot wash until he gets to the surface and the pithead baths and showers, perhaps three hours later. That is what health and safety is about.
There are also pneumoconiosis and emphysema. The House resisted the idea of paying compensation, and I am sorry that the previous occupant of the Chair, Mr. Lofthouse, is no longer in the Chamber, because he did so much for miners' health in that connection. He devoted his life to that cause.
Everyone with relatives in the coal industry knows how many men are carried out of the pit to the hospital. In Bassetlaw we managed to get a new hospital simply because while I was taking a health Minister round the hospital to show him why we needed a new one a man was brought out of the pit on a stretcher covered in blood and filth and there was nowhere to treat him properly. That is what the mining industry is about.
Mining is about foul air, too. Murderers, rapists and bank robbers serving long sentences wreck prisons and smash up their showers and toilets in some kind of protest, and people say, "We must stop slopping out." There is no slopping out down the pit. Below people's feet in my constituency, in south Yorkshire and north Nottinghamshire, there are men fighting for their jobs, fighting for the right to work like animals, while prisoners rioting above the ground get far more attention than the miners have ever had.
Who will be in charge of implementing the safety regulations? The manager. What an excuse! There is not even a Judge Tumim, the prison inspector who mildly complains that at the Wolds the prisoners stay in bed until half-past 10 with the curtains drawn because the sun would get in their eyes and wake them up. He is the inspector of prisons, and I am glad that he is, but where is the inspector of mines? Where is the new inspector who will go round every coal mine and ask why there is nowhere for the men to wash their hands?
The conditions are primitive. We are arguing about technicalities instead of establishing the day-to-day decencies that exist in every other industry. One of my hon. Friends referred to what Winston Churchill said in 1932. That was before I was born, but my dad was in prison—sorry, I mean, down the mine—then. He probably would have been better off in prison than down the mine even in those days. Winston Churchill said that
special circumstances existed to differentiate coalminers from … many other industries … Others have spoken of the heat of the mine, the danger of firedamp, of the cramped position, of the muscular exertion of the miner, at work in the galleries perhaps a mile under the ground. I select the single fact of deprivation of light. That alone is enough to justify Parliament in directing upon the industry of coalmining a specially severe scrutiny and introducing regulations of a different character from those elsewhere.


What has happened since 1932? The pits are deeper, hotter and more humid. Extraction rates have increased, and the heavy-duty machinery turns the coal out faster. Men are working more dangerous machinery in more cramped conditions, and they are working longer shifts. In longer shifts men get tired. We can increase the machinery; we can increase the productivity; we cannot increase human strength and endurance.
The National Union of Mineworkers has proved the dangers time after time. On 17 June last year a development worker employed by a private contracting firm was killed at the end of his shift because he was tired. On 10 March this year a washery plant manager was drawn between the drive wheels of a barrel washer. He had been working 12-hour shifts without a break for a significant period. On 19 March this year a service engineer was killed when he was hit by two runaway mine cars when he was walking out of the pit at the end of his shift. It is no coincidence that accidents occur when a substantial proportion of employees have worked for more than 48 hours that week—far longer than normal.
What sort of life will people living near the pits have when we have ultra-productivity and seven-day working? Every time a lorry backs up at a pit it sounds a klaxon horn, for safety reasons. Klaxon horns will be sounding all through Saturday night, and all through Sunday. What about people living within 100 yds of a pit? The people in charge will not bother about the heavy lorries, the pollution, the smoke and the dust.

Mr. Illsley: Is it not more likely that the Government will do away with the klaxon on the lorry?

Mr. Ashton: Many a true word is spoken in jest, but the klaxon is a necessary safety precaution, and people who live near the pits accept that. They put up with the noise from Monday to Thursday, although they sometimes complain that such work should not be done at night. People living in the neighbourhood of a pit put up with an enormous amount of inconvenience. They suffer because they know that their jobs are at stake, and that when the pit dies they will have no future left. That is why miners put up with those working conditions, for the sake of their kids and of their future.
When we privatise the prisons it seems that those involved can have whatever they like. When the Wolds opened people said what a wonderful prison it was because every prisoner would be able to have a clean pair of underpants every day. But we cannot find out how much that costs, who is making a profit and who is paying for it. Things are vastly different when it comes to selling off the pits.
Since privatisation began, and we have done away with so many rules and regulations, one thing has stood out a mile: Lloyd's, the insurance company, has damn near gone bust. For many years Lloyd's made a massive profit, but then we suddenly had ferries going down, with the bow doors being left open because the turnround time had been speeded up when the ferries were privatised. There was the King's Cross fire, because there was no time to consider the underground safety regulations. There are football disasters too, and disasters such as that on the Piper Alpha rig have brought Lloyd's to its knees.
There will be more disasters in the mines. Driven by the great push for more and more productivity, people will take short cuts, and the insurance companies will have to

pay. There is no reason for safety standards to be changed now, and putting implementation into the hands of managers who are under pressure to deliver productivity is a recipe for disaster.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I am the first member of the mining profession to be called to speak in this debate. Although I hesitate to compete with some of my colleagues who intervened earlier and referred to their 20 years' and 21 years' experience of the industry, I can claim to have 37 years' experience of the industry, particularly on the engineering side on which I want to concentrate. That was my forte and discipline. I spent time as an electrician in the mines and then as an engineer. I had some responsibility for supervising some of my colleagues' contemporaries in the mines in which I worked.
The important issue in the debate relates to the changes to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 as a result of the new regulations. I worked in the industry from 1944 and, even before the 1954 Act, the priority was safety. Acts of Parliament and regulations have primarily been concerned with safety. Safety was enshrined in the 1954 Act.
The new regulations change the fundamental principle, which has already been referred to, that a workman in a mine is responsible for his own safety. In certain circumstances, he could refuse to work in a part of the mine that he thought was unsafe. A miner who took that decision was never criticised and action was generally taken to improve the situation so that the workman felt confident.
The new regulations make significant changes. There are seven pages of changes to the 1954 Act and the regulations contain 25 other changes and four modifications. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred specifically to the role of deputies. I will not follow that line, because my hon. Friend made an excellent presentation on behalf of the union members whom he represents. However, he referred to an aspect on which I want to concentrate because it is fundamental to the changes proposed by the regulations and is critical for the mines. That aspect relates to the interpretation in paragraph 2(1) which states:
In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires … 'maintained' with respect to plant and equipment means maintained in relation to any matter which it is reasonably foreseeable will adversely affect the health and safety of any person in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair;
The 1954 Act demanded that plant and equipment must be in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. That is a very important difference.
I want now to refer to my experience as an electrician in the mines, because it reflects the protection of the 1954 Act and what it did for me. At four o'clock one morning, a machine at a coal face for which I was responsible as an electrician was damaged. Its flexible cable contained a tear about 18in long—I cannot say what that is in metric terms. I believed that that tear was dangerous and that it could cause a serious accident, if not an explosion. I decided to remove the power from the machine and the cable was changed. The overman in charge of production and the under-manager on the shift were not very happy about that.
I left the mine at about 8 am and went home to bed to get some sleep. I received a message to return to the mine to have an interview with the manager. The pit manager happened to be a lay Methodist preacher. When I went to


his office, I saw before me a piece of paper which was my notice. I was being fired. Everything on the paper was filled in except the signature. As a young married man with two children, I found that rather frightening.
I sat down and the pit manager asked me for an explanation. I explained why I had done what I did. Happily, a very good engineer defended me. He said that I had complied with the 1954 Act specifically all the way down the line. He said that he would not support any proposition to have me fired. Eventually, the manager withdrew the piece of paper. It was obviously a threat. The important point was that the 1954 Act protected me on that occasion.
The expression
so far as is practicable
occurs in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the regulations. I believe that that phrase is open to misinterpretation and abuse. I should have thought that the people in British Coal, as they are the people in the industry, would consider that phrase very carefully.
However, many hon. Members have received a copy of a document from British Coal today entitled "The Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations 1993", which was issued for this debate. The section relating to the appointment of a manager states:
In accordance with Regulation 9(3) of the 1993 Regulations you shall so far as is practicable:—
and there are then subsections (a) to (d) which are followed by 4(a) to (g) and the rest which all refer to
as far as is practicable.
That expression does not appear in the 1954 Act.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what section 157 of the 1954 Act does? Does not it provide a defence of impracticability in respect of many of the Act's provisions?

Mr. Thompson: I fully understand. I do not know how many hours the Minister has spent down a mine. It cannot be too many—if any. The difference between the 1954 Act and the current changes relates to the statutory responsibility of everyone in the mining industry from the manager to the young boy who has just joined the industry. That is what is important. Everything will now be discretionary. "As is practicable" can mean anything to anyone. If I were still an engineer in the industry, I should consider the phrase a defence, and I would manage to use it successfully.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the crucial underlying legal position that if someone is injured and goes to court to claim compensation the employer can use the defence that it was not practicable to do something because it was too costly? Behind the phrase
so far as is practicable
lies the justification of expenditure which will, in effect, provide an argument for the employer to say, "It was far too costly and I couldn't therefore afford it." Therefore, compensation need not be paid. This is a cost-cutting measure and that is the essential application of the phrase.

Mr. Thompson: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Such situations will certainly arise. However, having worked in the industry, I am concerned about how the regulations apply in respect of ventilation, the safety of

mining equipment and the mechanical and electrical side of the industry. How do they affect roof supports and a range of other issues involved in the industry?
There is a loophole which I am sure many people in British Coal will be concerned about at colliery management level. However, they may not be so concerned about it at Hobart house, because it depends what is going to happen when the mines are privatised.
I also regret the demise of the mining qualifications board. That body was highly respected in the industry. It set and applied high standards. It appears that the Health and Safety Executive has recently given itself power to approve qualifications instead of the board. I do not know what that move means in respect of the level of qualifications that will be demanded in any level of management in the industry. It seems that we are moving into an area in respect of which the House will have no opportunity to challenge what the HSE does. At the moment, we can mount such challenges through the Minister. In other words, that is a step backwards.
I am also concerned about the Coal and Other Mines (Mechanics and Electricians) Regulations 1965. Colleagues who lived by those previous regulations, as I did, will also be concerned that significant changes will apparently take place. Under the regulations, the mechanic or electrician in charge of a mine must have a certificate if there are more than 75 prime movers in that mine. I do not know what that will mean in the context of the new propositions. He must also be at least 25 years old. Again, I do not know what that will mean in the context of the new propositions.
After studying the changes, it is obvious that responsibility for safety and health in British mines has been shifted from the Government—the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Employment—to an executive organisation that is not answerable to Parliament. As my colleagues have mentioned, there is a lead-in for the Government's privatisation programme. I also envisage complex legal issues being raised because of the rather loose wording of the regulations. Of course, the only beneficiaries will be lawyers.
I am sure that hon. Members who travel frequently would not like to see any detrimental changes in the regulations governing the qualifications and standards of airline pilots or ships' captains. I do not want to see detrimental changes in the regulations governing coal mining. The regulations are detrimental and a step backward.

6 pm

Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Minister shakes his head when listening to hon. Members with many years' experience of underground mining. I worked underground for more than 20 years, and for 15 years on the coal face. I wonder whether the Minister would like to tell the House and the country how many years' experience he has had of health and safety underground. What does he know about working underground, save from reading a brief that somebody in his Department has put together for him? Has it struck him that no hon. Member has supported what he is doing? Only two Conservative Members have spoken about this matter, and both were critical. One said that in no circumstances would he support the regulations.


The other one was not quite sure; he wanted some assurances. Unfortunately, neither hon. Gentleman is present.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way. The Minister did not give way to me, so I will not give way to him.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) seeks assurances. Let me remind him that several Conservative Members sought and were given assurances in March last year, when the Government brought forward a White Paper. We know what happened to those assurances. Undoubtedly, it will be exposed in tomorrow's debate on the coal industry.
The way in which the regulations were laid before Parliament is a total disgrace. The Government conveniently waited until the House was in recess and, on 6 August, presented this statutory instrument which effectively wipes out the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. That instrument came into force on 1 October, before the House resumed. It is clear that the Government had no intention of allowing debate on this very important matter. It is despicable that the Government should use such methods to repeal important mine safety regulations. It is typical of the Government's underhand approach that they should sneak through changes during the recess. That shows the Government's contempt for democracy and for Parliament and its procedures.
Together with last week's announcement about abolishing the 1908 legislation, we now have the deregulation of mine safety and the extension of working hours for our miners. That will be a recipe for disaster. Hon. Members must make no mistake about it; the regulations are being put in place for one reason only and that is to pave the way for privatisation. That will create in our mines conditions that turn back the clock more than 100 years.

Mr. Etherington: Like many Opposition Members, my hon. Friend has a keen interest in, and a great knowledge of, the history of legislation covering the coal mining industry. Does he accept that, in the past, it was always the miners and their supporters who eventually managed to obtain improvements in legislation and that this is the first ever coal mining legislation which does not have the support of miners and their supporters?

Mr. Hughes: I certainly concur with my hon. Friend. It is outrageous that such measures are being brought forward in this way. We have seen improvements, but, unfortunately, they have usually been brought about because of an accident or other serious occurrence underground. Many hon. Members have campaigned on issues relating to health and safety underground. The Government are intent on destroying the regulations that have protected miners for many years.
Deregulated mine safety and longer working hours will lead to more injuries and deaths underground in our coal mines. No longer will our miners have the protection of strict rules and regulations to defend them from an owner whose main motivation is cost saving and higher profits. No longer will they have the protection of the mine deputy, because that position will be systematically scrapped by

the legislation. Instead, they will be at the behest of a manager, with only loose guidelines on health and safety, whose main motivation is higher profits.
The people who pay the price for this stupid legislation will be our miners and their families. In introducing this legislation, the Government have shown their total disregard for the safety of our mines and our mineworkers. We can be in no doubt about what coal industry the Government want—one that is fragmented, low cost and low on safety. It seems that the Government do not give tuppence for the men who risk their lives each and ever, day in our coal mines.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Like my colleagues, I shall speak against the mines administration package, not because we want to protect the deputies' union or any other union but because we regard the mines administration package as lowering safety standards in the mining industry. The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 is being replaced by a code of practice. We will have a code of practice which cannot be followed by the industry after the implementation of the regulations, whereas the 1954 Act placed statutory duties on the industry. For example, paragraph 96 of the code of practice on the management and administration of safety and health at mines states:
All parts of a mine should be inspected".
The code of practice does not say that the mine shall or must be inspected—it simply states that it should be inspected. Therefore, if there is an accident, or if a roof falls in a mine that has not been inspected, the injured workmen cannot claim compensation because no statutory right is placed on the manager or the owner of the mine to inspect the whole of the colliery. The code of practice will cause real problems in the industry because there will not be statutory back-up.
The Minister said that the Health and Safety Commission had produced the new regulations and the code of practice because of inadequacies in the existing legislation. However, no one has mentioned any of those inadequacies, and I have not seen a list of the inadequacies which led the commission to produce the code of practice.
In 1988–89, the Select Committee on Energy—sadly, it is now defunct—produced a report on mine safety which included references to the mines administration package. We took evidence from the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission. No information was given to the Select Committee about any inadequacies in the 1954 Act or other legislation. Therefore, I am sceptical about the Minister's assertion that there is anything wrong with the 1954 Act.
This summer, we saw the tragic accident at Bilsthorpe, which used roof bolting. If the Minister looked at the Select Committee's report on mine safety in the 1988–89 Session, he would see the recommendation that we made about roof bolting. We pointed out that roof bolting was not the safest method of support in a mine and that the best form of support would be arched girders.
About a year ago, I attended a meeting with British Coal in the North Yorkshire area. We were treated to a discussion on roof bolting and given a big heavy document on its pros and cons. At that meeting, I was surprised when British Coal said that it realised that geological pressures in mines do not come down from on top but from the sides. It took British Coal only about 100 years to work that out,


but now it has the idea that it is okay to use roof bolts. The fact that roof bolting is a little cheaper is said to have nothing to do with it.
It is no surprise that the package has been introduced before a Bill to privatise the coal industry. We expect an announcement about such legislation in the Queen's Speech. When we look at all the measures relating to the coal industry that are before us at present, we see that the idea is simply to reduce safety standards, because safety costs money. It is fairly obvious that costs will be reduced before privatisation to make the coal industry a little more attractive to the private sector.
Safety regulations will be reduced as a result of repealing the 1908 Act, and the number of hours that a miner will be required to work underground will be increased to about 12. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to accidents occurring at the end of shifts. Safety regulations will be reduced, working hours will be increased and—this is the most important part of the mines administration package—the statutory role of the colliery deputy will be removed. It is simply a matter of deregulating the industry to sell it. The Government want to sell to private mine owners who do not want to spend money on implementing safety measures.
All that will be done against the backdrop of a falling market. It seems absolutely crazy to introduce a mines administration package today when we will debate tomorrow the crisis in the coal industry—the further pit closures that we face as a result of the increased use of gas-fired generation. Why do not we wait to see what will happen to the industry before we jiggle with safety aspects? Why do not we wait to see what will happen to the industry in the future?
People in the industry, especially the electricity supply industry, are looking at 10 to 12 years of gas-fired generation, followed by the need to import gas. People at National Power have told me that they will bolt a coal gasifier to the back of a coal-fired power station to use coal again within 20 to 30 years. Collieries will be closed and, in 20, 30 or 40 years, coal will be imported, which will be put through gas-fired turbines. It is an absolutely crazy situation.
The major issue, which I referred to earlier in an intervention, is the role of the colliery deputy and the responsibility for safety. At present, the deputy has a statutory duty and statutory responsibilities with regard to safety in the mine. If there is an accident underground, the deputy has the power to stop production. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) referred to a situation in which he had done just that.
The deputy has statutory protection. An important point is that if the deputy has stopped production after an accident or a dangerous occurrence, the mine owner cannot sack, criticise or attack him for sticking to mine operating procedures. The deputy has always had that power.
The deputy has first-aid qualifications, especially with regard to the proper and carefully controlled use of morphine and other drugs underground. However, that responsibility will be handed to untrained supervisors and inspectors. The statutory requirement will be removed from deputies and handed to people who almost certainly will not have the same level of expertise or training.
I have referred to the measuring of gas levels, the taking of dust recordings and so on. The Government will do away with the statutory duty that is placed on the deputy at present. That will divide production and safety. At present, the deputy is protected. In the future, the supervisor will probably be responsible for production and the inspector will be responsible for safety. There will be a clash when the inspector wants to stop the mine because of a safety matter and the supervisor wants to keep it going. It has not gone unnoticed that, in the midlands, supervisors will be paid production bonuses. The supervisor will want to keep the colliery going to ensure that the financial element is satisifed, whereas the inspector will not have that specific power. That is where the whole mines administration package is weakened.
Earlier, I referred to a document from the new mines working party. The document was put to the Select Committee on Energy in 1989 when the then director of technical operations, Mr. Moses—sadly, he is no longer with us—accused me of having a stolen document because of a specific paragraph in it. The document states:
Possible sources for District Managers given the requirement for a Deputies ticket. This would tend to encourage the view that District Managers will have to have been safety inspectors."—
this is the crucial sentence—
This might counter some of the benefits of separating safety and production.
The working party expressed the view that the industry would not be able to appoint district managers who would be willing to circumvent the safety aspects of the mine. It was worried that all the members who were employed would be deputies and, because they had been trained as deputies, would put safety first. The document reflects the fact that the working party did not expect safety to be paramount.
In the future, supervisors will not have any responsibilities for safety. They will be there simply to increase production—to get as much out of the pit as possible. In the present market, the only way that anyone will make money from selling coal is to undercut all other contracts in the coal mining industry. The only way to do that is to stop spending on safety, cut back on wages and take the industry back to the pre-1946 days of the private owners when conditions underground were absolutely diabolical.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, I can say yes, everyone in the industry wants major improvements, especially in sanitary facilities underground, which sadly do not exist. At the same time, we want safety to be paramount underground.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Will my hon. Friend accept that there were limited chemical toilet facilities in the mine where I worked? The problem was that they were at the shelf bottom and we worked 10 km away.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. In the House we so often hear people speaking from the experiences of 20 and 30 years ago. Perhaps sanitary conditions underground are not as bad as we have been led to believe.
The mines administration package will have other results which cause me great concern. I think that future legislation will remove existing health and safety regulations. The regulations introduced after the Aberfan disaster could well be under threat, as could those introduced after the Markham Main and Houghton Main


disasters. Each of those disasters led to regulations that were designed to deal with the problems that had occurred. Those rules and laws are likely to be deregulated, as are those affected by the mines administration package.
It seems strange that although we have been dealing with the regulations since 1983 and with the various drafts since 1989—the Select Committee on Energy took evidence on such matters for a report in the 1989 Session —for some reason they were shoved before the House at the beginning of a recess. Why did that happen? It is absolutely diabolical.
In conclusion, the sum total of the regulations is that safety in mines will decrease.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) that the laying of the regulations was disgraceful. The Minister claimed that he wanted to be able to give the regulations some high quality scrutiny, which delayed them. His scrutiny came to an end six days after Parliament rose for the recess, when he was able to lay the regulations and, concomitant with that, they became law before the House came back, so there was no opportunity for us to discuss them before they came into operation. Moreover, those regulations repeal large sections of primary legislation which were passed in this place and have simply been removed by the arbitrary fiat of the Minister.
The regulations were also laid during the recess because before it there had been a little trouble with Tory Back Benchers over Maastricht and the coal mines. By leaving the recess for the Tories to forget about such things, the Minister could pretty well depend on a majority when they came back.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: My hon. Friend has a lot of experience in the House. I am a relatively new Member. I have never seen a statutory instrument that is 28 pages long. Usually they are one sheet, or perhaps two or three at the outside. We are discussing a detailed 28-page statutory instrument. Does my hon. Friend want to comment on that?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend may be used to only tiny statutory instruments, but unfortunately many of the 3,500 statutory instruments per annum that the Government are laying—more than any other Parliament in our history—run to 40, 50 or 60 clauses and to as many pages.
This statutory instrument is important. The Minister knew that it was controversial, but as he is an arrogant, right-wing, goggle-eyed extremist, he does not care. That is the fact of the matter. He is on the right-wing fringe of the Tory party, so Parliament is not very important to him. The democratic processes are not important to him and, even if it had been 100 pages long, the statutory instrument would have received the same treatment. Due to their right-wing position, the Government believe that this legislation is a necessary preparation for privatisation. That is what Opposition Members believe.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair and which meets every Tuesday, has not had the opportunity to examine the instrument because the Government insisted that if we wanted three hours to discuss it, it should be taken today instead of tomorrow, when we could have produced a report. The Committee's view is that there are defects in the instrument. We have

asked the Department for some items of information, to which it has responded, but we cannot provide a response to the House because after all these years of consultation the Government insist that the statutory instrument must be discussed right now. It does not add up, except when one understands that they do not give a fig for the democratic processes.

Mr. Etherington: If my hon. Friend had had the opportunity to scrutinise the statutory instrument, which, as he is well aware, was presented to the Government by the Health and Safety Executive, would he not have been somewhat lukewarm towards it, knowing that the organisation which advised on it was the same organisation that gave the dispensation for roof bolting to be carried out at Bilsthorpe colliery? When that organisation had to report on the reasons for the failure of the roof bolts, it stated it was because they were in "unsatisfactory ground", although it had given permission for them to be used in such ground.

Mr. Cryer: We must continuously take into account the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission. That is why we should consider these statutory instruments—based on those bodies' recommendations—before the instruments come into operation, so that the weight of experience of working practices and the effect of existing legislation can be brought to bear instead of the academic approach of the HSE and the Commission.
As it happens, I was on the Committee of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work, etc. Bill. I and Alex Wilson —a working miner who had come to this place—were concerned to preserve the safety standards which had prevailed and to improve them. Between us, we managed to insert a phrase to ensure that delegated powers should be used only to maintain and improve existing standards as we were frightened that there would be an erosion of those standards. I very much regret that the amendment that I tabled, which would have required absolute provision to be retained, was not agreed by the Committee, because it would have made an important difference.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central mentioned the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969 and Aberfan. That strikes a chord. The House would not include the words
so far as is practicable
in that Act because it was a qualification. The Act states that mines and tips "shall be kept safe". The reason for the Act was that 90 little children were engulfed and the nation rose up in horror and said that it must never happen again. That has also happened when miners have been killed in serious mining accidents.
For years we have all said that we must have absolute safety standards and that pits and machinery shall be safe, but in this statutory instrument the regulations are all qualified. It is extraordinary. For example, clause 13 states:
It shall also be the duty of the manager of the mine, so far as is practicable … to make suitable arrangements for recording the names of all persons who go below ground".
Is that really to be a qualified duty? Should it not be a requirement that everyone who goes under ground is recorded and that someone knows where they are? If that is done "so far as is practicable" and anyone is injured, the owner of the mine will be able to say, "I'm terribly sorry, but it was too costly: we would have had to bring in an extra man." The mine owner would be able to say that the cost was too high and that he had conformed with the


statutory requirement. If that phrase were removed, there would be an absolute duty like that set out in section 14 of the Factories Act 1961 which states that dangerous machinery "shall be fenced". Under that legislation a worker had a good chance of compensation if his hand was chopped off. We do not want compensation for its own sake, but if the duties are absolute and something goes wrong, it is the worker and his family who suffer and compensation should be available.
These regulations reduce the level of claim in civil courts, so insurance premiums will come down. Insurance companies will feel more comfortable with this sort of legislation and, of course, private owners will, too. Their friends in Government are putting these regulations before us for that precise reason.
We shall vote against these regulations tonight. I hope that even one or two of those Tories who have been expressing such concern about mine safety will vote with us, as well as all the rag, tag and bobtail parties. We should make a clear commitment that when we get into office we will restore safety standards in mines and quarries at the same time as we restore them to public ownership.

Mr. Michael Clapham: The Minister has failed to take into account the unique role of the deputy. That role has developed over more than a century and a half. The first legislation came in the 1840s, and the deputy's role gradually developed until it became enshrined in legislation in 1911. Then came the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.
The 1954 Act came into being as a result of the bitter experiences of the 19th century. The opportunities that it provided have resulted in British coal mines becoming the safest in the world due to the unique combination of the deputy's supervisory and safety roles. The separation of supervisory work from safety considerations will take us back to the bad situation which existed in the 19th century.
I will give the Minister an example. I spent 10 years at the coal face underground. Sometimes the undermanager on the coal face wanted the shearer machine to move down the face, but because the distance from the tunnel to the coal seam was more than seven yards the deputy could say, "No, that machine does not move". In other words, he could base his decision on considerations for the safety of the men working on the coal face and not have to face the difficulty of the undermanager coming back at him about that. Under these regulations, all of that will change. If a deputy decides to stop a job for safety reasons, he can expect the manager to override his decision. Production will have priority over safety considerations.
The Minister mentioned contract workers. They do not come under the same strict supervision as payroll workers. The rate of accidents is more than twice as high among contract workers as among payroll workers. That is the result of separating the safety role from the supervisory role.
Deregulation is taking place in readiness for privatisation. If the Minister were prepared to come clean, he would tell the House just that. Since 1985 we have seen the gradual Americanisation of British mines. After the strike, Mr. MacGregor sent his managers to see what was

happening in American mines and to come back with ideas, and gradually some of those ideas have been implemented—to the detriment of the men in the pits.
It is clear that the regulations will produce inferior safety standards in mines. Because the deputy's supervisory role is to be separate from his other role he will not be able to make the decisions that he made previously. If the Government had any real understanding of the situation and were prepared to listen to the compassion expressed on this side of the House, they would withdraw the code of practice and allow further consultations, particularly with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers—the union responsible for implementing safety in mines.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I should like to start my speech, as so many of my colleagues have done, by referring to Bilsthorpe colliery. A few weeks after the disaster I had the opportunity to visit the colliery and to meet Mr. Robson, union officials and others. The devastating impact of that disaster on the whole community was clear. It has blighted the lives, not just of the suffering families, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred, but of the whole community. The disaster brings home to us the dangers that miners face every day when they cut coal and the need for tough safety regulations. Miners need to work in a climate or, to use a word that the Minister for Energy abused some weeks ago, a culture in which it is possible for safety and productivity to co-exist.
The debate is taking place because of the uproar following the way in which this statutory instrument was presented. It was not presented so much as slipped under the door as the House was closing for the summer recess. Despite the nine years of discussions, the Select Committee's deliberations on safety and the opportunities to comment, the only people who have not had an opportunity to comment until today are those who are ultimately responsible for safety regulations, namely, this House of Commons. We give a grudging welcome to today's opportunity because the handling of the matter—the presentation of a fait accompli—is not the way to establish a consensus on which safety procedures can proceed.
There have been several speeches, and some interventions were almost speeches. That is often the case when those who intervene speak with passion, authority and experience. I am thinking of the interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Cummings), for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes)—a sprinkling from across the whole British coalfield.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker) was the author of the Health and Safety Commission. His speech was an erudite, passionate defence of the regulations that he and his right hon. Friends introduced so many years ago and consolidated into a code of practice acceptable to and understood by all sections of the industry. At the heart of it were his words that those involved "had a duty" to maintain and improve conditions.
What we see today is not the fulfilment of that duty so much as the avoidance of it and of detailed, explicit statutes from which to seek guidance. We have heard today of men taking the 1954 Act down the pit with them as their defence


against management which is sometimes stupid and sometimes insensitive in its pursuit of production. We know that this independence was enjoyed not just by the deputies but by the tradesmen and craftsmen who go down pits and have a critical role to play. The men always knew that, quite separate from the colliery management, there were the deputies and firemen.
Perhaps surprisingly, Opposition Members today have quoted Winston Churchill. Introducing the Coal Mines Bill of 1906 he said:
The deputies and firemen are the non-commissioned officers of the Mining Industry, and just as non-commissioned officers are said to be the backbone of the British Army, so the deputies and firemen are the essential foundation on which the safety and security of the mines mainly repose.
It may seem almost heretical of me to say this, but I do not think that the pit deputies are necessarily candidates for canonisation. They can be a pain in the neck—indeed they are, both to the management and to the men winning the coal—but they have their own standards; they have independence, based on statute and consolidated in the 1954 Act. This means that when men in my constituency go down the pit, their wives and families and people like me who send them down there have confidence that, if it is sensible and safe for them to work, they will work.
That is not at all the same as saying that it is "practicable", an expression that has infected this debate. There have been many references to the phrase "as far as is practicable". We do not want our people to be safe as far as is practicable. We want the miners in the coal mines of this country to win the coal on our behalf with the guarantee that there will be no conflict of interest underground between the demands of production and those of safety.
We know, on the basis of 40 or so years of public ownership, that it is possible to balance those two elements. Our coal industry is more successful now than any other deep mining industry in the world. It operates under geological difficulties far in excess of those anywhere else across the globe.
We know that if miners are given the right opportunities and technology they can do the job safely and effectively. And we know what happened at Bilsthorpe: the men were required to dig coal for their livelihood, but corners were cut by means of roof bolting and skin-to-skin technology. That resulted in a tragic accident that could have been anticipated. The 1989 Allerton Bywater report identified the dangers caused by the erosion of residual pillars. The warnings were clear for all to see, but as Bilsthorpe was fighting for its life, it seems that other considerations took precedence.
The miners should never have been forced to choose between these considerations. Ministers knew that they were offering false hope to the men. Similarly, the choice between productivity and safety is essentially a false one.

Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have him wrong, but is he seriously saying that three men died at Bilsthorpe because corners were cut?

Mr. O'Neill: Yes. The roof bolting was not the major contributory factor. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) pointed out, perhaps the inspectors protested too much in that respect. However, in the context of the skin-to-skin approach, without guarantees of proper pillars to hold up the coal around the workings there was a serious threat to which the men should not have been exposed.
Safety is not incompatible with increased productivity under a system of public ownership. We are proud of the record of the publicly owned British coal industry, and we are proud that the arrangements for safety have always been based on consensus. This is the first time an issue of safety has been the subject of division in the House. In the weeks and months ahead the House will face the challenge of the Government's proposals to privatise ownership of the coal industry. The Government want to create conditions that will attract foreign investors to our industry to buy the mines from the Government.
Increased safety is fine, but let us have safety arrangements that enjoy the confidence of the miners group in this House, for instance. We ask the miners of this country to make the sacrifices involved in going underground, after all.
It is very difficult for the Minister to provide us with evidence of fatalities in private mines because, as we know, the HSE does not calculate the figures separately. More importantly, however, why are these figures not to be made available? Will the Minister admit that the reason is that it would be deeply embarrassing for the Government and the HSE if the figures were made known?
If the Government do not have statistics, I can give them mine. The accident rate in the private mining sector is three times higher than that in British Coal. The risk of death in private licensed mines is greater than it is in British Coal mines, and the fatality rate in private United States mines is three times greater than the rate in publicly owned British Coal. It is no use Ministers claiming that this last statistic can be explained by the different geological conditions in America. If anything, conditions there are easier. The United States should therefore have a lower accident rate.
The truth is that the system of ownership in America does not lend itself to safety because the pursuit of profit is always put before safety in the private mines. The outcome of this debate will determine not how many men go down a pit to cut coal but how many come out of the pit at the end of a shift. Even as we speak, British colliery managers have nothing more than vague, unspecified guidelines to follow—instructions that are so inadequate that the managers are still hanging on to the tried and tested procedures in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.
Surely it would have been more sensible if Ministers had taken the time to come up with a consensus on safety, since consensus has served the industry so well for so long.
There have been times in the House in recent months when Tory Members have supported us and the coal industry. I urge those who have voted with us to save the coal industry to join us in the Lobbies tonight to vote down these mean and dangerous regulations. Our task tonight is not to save miners' jobs; it is to save miners' lives.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: With the leave of the House, I should like to try to answer as many of the points made in the debate as I can. I shall be happy to write to hon. Members about any important matters that I do not have time to deal with.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) made much of the "practicable" point as it applies to the regulations. He was echoed in that by the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).


The hon. Member for Wansbeck waved the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and asked where the test of practicability was to be found in that Act. If he turns to section 157, he will find that it states:
It shall be a defence in any legal proceedings to recover damages and in any prosecution, in so far as the proceedings or prosecution are or is based on an allegation of a contravention, in relation to a mine or quarry, of—

(a) a provision of this Act…
(b) a direction, prohibition, restriction…
(c) a condition attached to an exemption".

It goes on to say that it shall be a defence
to prove that it was impracticable to avoid or prevent the contravention.
The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members argued that the idea of practicability was new. That argument is undermined by the fact that the 1954 legislation was subject to that test of practicability.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No. I have many issues that I wish to raise.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the mines inspectorate has too close a relationship with British Coal. That was unworthy of him and I venture to remind him of the argument made by a number of his hon. Friends that the British coal industry has an excellent record.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No, I have already said that I want to deal with many arguments.
A number of hon. Members said that our coal industry had the best safety record in the world. That record might have something to do with the quality of the mines inspectorate and its splendid work. It is regrettable that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should have sought to cast aspersions on the integrity and independence of the mines inspectorate, which has supported the proposals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) asked me an important question about the division of responsibility for supervision and inspection. He specifically asked about what would happen in an emergency. The regulations separate supervision from inspection. The advantages of that separation are clear. If the person in charge is miles away making an inspection, he cannot supervise the men at the coal face.
My right hon. Friend also asked who was responsible in an emergency. The supervisor for an area, as is normal throughout the industry, would be responsible. Of course, if an inspector on his rounds finds something that requires immediate action, he must take it. In all other circumstances, he reports matters requiring attention to the supervisor, who has a duty to arrange remedial action. I hope that that will reassure my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked me about an important matter that has been raised by several hon. Members and said that my answer to his question would determine whether he supported the Government in the Lobby tonight. I hope that my answer will be clear. He said that the ability to halt the process for safety reasons had been removed. That is not so. Section 79 of the Mines

and Quarries Act 1954 makes it the duty of the person in charge of any part of the mine, if there is an immediate danger, to withdraw the workers. The Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations do not change section 79. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that we will have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) took me to task over the timing of the regulations. I explained to him why there had been a delay in tabling the regulations before the House and why we felt that we had to comply with the suggested timetable of the Health and Safety Commission. I will certainly bring his remarks to the attention of the commission. I hope that he will understand the reasons why Ministers have acted as they have.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker) has played an important part in ensuring that we have an excellent Health and Safety Commission in this country and high standards of health and safety. As he said, he was the sponsoring Minister, and he asked whether it was right—he almost suggested that it was not right—for the regulations not to improve or maintain safety standards. Section 1(2) of the legislation, for which he was responsible, requires the commission to introduce proposals that maintain and improve safety. The explanatory memorandum attached to the regulations states:
The proposals are necessary in order to improve and strengthen the current statutory requirements which have certain defects and anomalies.
I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman were the Minister responsible, he, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, would have felt moved to table the regulations before the House, given the Health and Safety Commission's recommendations.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central said that mining was different from other industries and that the Health and Safety Commission should not tamper with existing legislation. It is true that the safety record since the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 was introduced has been considerable. However, that does not mean that there is no room for improvement or that the target-setting approach endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is inappropriate for the mining industry. That approach was adopted post-Cullen in another hazardous industry—offshore oil production.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) suggested that in some underground areas nobody would be qualified to test for gas, but that is not so. In every underground area there will have to be a supervisor who must have, as a minimum, the qualifications of a deputy, including the ability to test for gas. Every inspector must be qualified to test for gas, and has the duty to do so.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), in an ill-tempered contribution, talked about the regulations being inspired by privatisation. I am at a loss to understand how he can describe a process that began in 1983—consultation on the regulations began in 1988—as being driven by the requirements of privatisation. I also fail to understand his apparent belief that the Health and Safety Commission's determination to seek privatisation was so great that it would override its statutory duties.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that accidents were being caused because shifts were too long. Some work has been done on the relationship between


accident frequency and the time of the shift when the accident took place. The work shows that most accidents occur mid-shift and there is no discernible increase towards the end of the shift.

Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No, I will not.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) criticised me for never having worked down a coal mine. My workplace is the House of Commons, as is his. One of my activities in the House is to listen to the contributions of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark had said that they were going to vote against the regulations.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North was talking absolute nonsense as both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend made important and supportive contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby was at pains to describe how the regulations had issued from the Health and Safety Commission. He said that we were entitled to take them seriously, given that organisation's track record in maintaining health and safety standards in this country.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central talked about a code of practice replacing legislation, and its being a retrograde step. A breach of the codes of practice will be a prima facie case for a breach of the regulations. It is nonsense to compare—as many Opposition Members did —an approved code of practice with a voluntary requirement which does not have statutory force.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central also said that no evidence was being produced for the need for a new law. However, in submitting the MASHAM proposals, the Health and Safety Commission made it clear that they were necessary to deal with some defects and anomalies in existing law, chiefly that those in immediate charge in a deputy's district—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and others have had their say, but he and his friends do not want to hear the answers. They know that the Health and Safety Commission have acted in the interests of safety, while they have spoken for the interests of trade unions, which is not the same.
The regulations have been produced to ensure that the highest standards of safety are maintained in mines. The Opposition have put up a dreadful showing tonight, and have shown where their interests lie. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 292.

Division No. 368]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bell, Stuart


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F.


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Dr. Roger


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Betts, Clive


Armstrong, Hilary
Blair, Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blunkett, David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Paul


Austin-Walker, John
Boyce, Jimmy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boyes, Roland


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Battle, John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Bayley, Hugh
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)





Byers, Stephen
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hutton, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ingram, Adam


Canavan, Dennis
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cann, Jamie
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jamieson, David


Clapham, Michael
Janner, Greville


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Coffey, Ann
Jowell, Tessa


Connarty, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Keen, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Khabra, Piara S.


Corston, Ms Jean
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cousins, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Cryer, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cummings, John
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Livingstone, Ken


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davidson, Ian
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAllion, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McAvoy, Thomas


Denham, John
McCartney, Ian


Dewar, Donald
McCrea, Rev William


Dixon, Don
Macdonald, Calum


Dobson, Frank
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maclennan, Robert


Eastham, Ken
McMaster, Gordon


Enright, Derek
McWilliam, John


Etherington, Bill
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mahon, Alice


Fatchett, Derek
Mandelson, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Marek, Dr John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Flynn, Paul
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maxton, John


Foulkes, George
Meale, Alan


Fraser, John
Michael, Alun


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galloway, George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gapes, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Garrett, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gerrard, Neil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morgan, Rhodri


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morley, Elliot


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'nshawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gould, Bryan
Mowlam, Marjorie


Graham, Thomas
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gunnell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hain, Peter
Olner, William


Hanson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Harman, Ms Harriet
Paisley, Rev Ian


Henderson, Doug
Parry, Robert


Heppell, John
Patchett, Terry


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pendry, Tom


Hinchliffe, David
Pickthall, Colin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Pope, Greg


Hood, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, John






Primarolo, Dawn
Spellar, John


Purchase, Ken
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Radice, Giles
Steinberg, Gerry


Randall, Stuart
Stevenson, George


Raynsford, Nick
Stott, Roger


Redmond, Martin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Rendel, David
Straw, Jack


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis


Rooker, Jeff
Vaz, Keith


Rooney, Terry
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wallace, James


Rowlands, Ted
Walley, Joan


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Salmond, Alex
Watson, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheerman, Barry
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Brian


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snaps, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Chapman, Sydney


Aitken, Jonathan
Churchill, Mr


Alexander, Richard
Clappison, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ancram, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Congdon, David


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bendall, Vivian
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Booth, Hartley
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Tim


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Elletson, Harold


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butcher, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butterfill, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Evennett, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Faber, David


Carrington, Matthew
Fabricant, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Cash, William
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fishburn, Dudley





Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mans, Keith


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marland, Paul


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony


Fry, Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gallie, Phil
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gill, Christopher
Milligan, Stephen


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mills, Iain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Needham, Richard


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Nick
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan






Streeter, Gary
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sumberg, David
Waller, Gary


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, Ian (Eshar)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Waterson, Nigel


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thomton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thumham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Willetts, David


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trend, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Walden, George
Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Question accordingly negatived.

Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the draft Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.
Before I comment in detail on the more significant provisions, I should perhaps explain to the House the reason why the draft order was withdrawn and relaid on 18 October. The draft order previously laid before the House contained a textual omission from article 28, which relates to the substituted article 116 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. That article made provision for regulations governing the repayment or reduction of grant in specified circumstances.
As a result of that technical defect, the order as originally laid would not have provided the necessary vires for the recovery of enhanced value of the proceeds from surplus school property which currently exists in article 116 of the 1986 order. It was always intended that the new order should provide for the vires to continue unchanged. For the same reason, an identical amendment has been made to part II, schedule 4, which deals with colleges of education. The opportunity has also been taken in schedules 4 and 5 to correct a similar deficiency in the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, relating to grant-maintained integrated schools.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What sort of numbers will be involved, going back to 1967, if schools want to take the opt-out option?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman waits a little, I shall explain the provisions on the 100 per cent. grant, to which I think he was referring. I am merely explaining why the order was withdrawn and relaid. The reasons were essentially technical. I hope that the House will appreciate that there is no other reason behind the withdrawal and relaying of the order. If, when the hon. Gentleman has heard what I have to say, he still wishes to ask a question, I shall respond to it then.
The order has been the subject of wide consultation with educational interests in Northern Ireland. In addition to being sent to all schools and colleges of further education and their boards of governors, the order was sent to more than 100 other individuals and bodies, including the universities, the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council, the Northern Ireland Schools Examinations and Assessment Council, the main teachers' unions and the four main Churches.
I should like to record my appreciation of the interest shown by the 70 or so educational bodies and individuals who submitted comments. Most of them were supportive and generally welcomed the proposals. All the comments were carefully considered. As a result of the comments, several changes have been made to the draft order. I shall deal with those changes a little later.
I am sure that the House will appreciate that the order is large and detailed. I should like to comment on the main points of interest.

Sir James Kilfedder: Can the Minister tell me whether the Protestant Churches support the order?

Mr. Ancram: I have to be cautious how I answer because the order covers a great deal of ground and I suspect that the Churches would support some parts and be less supportive of others. I know that representations have been made about one or two of the points in the order. In one case I have sought to alleviate the concerns by making a change in the order itself. I shall mention that later.
I shall now discuss the main provisions. I am happy to answer any questions about the other provisions during the debate, but it is to a large extent a technical order and I am sure that there are aspects of it into which hon. Members will not wish to delve in too much detail.
I start with what is perhaps one of the main issues—that of competitive tendering. Parts II and III of the order deal with competitive tendering and general administration of public supply and works contracts by education and library boards in Northern Ireland. The Government's policy of subjecting public services to external comparison with the private sector is already well established throughout the United Kingdom. The results of the policy of competition are becoming self-evident. In Northern Ireland, annual savings of about £7·9 million have been achieved in the health service, and in the civil service the exposure of services to competition has realised savings of about £6·1 million per year. Indeed, the benefits of competitive tendering have already been recognised by the education and library boards and most of the activities defined in the order have also already been, or are planned to be, submitted to the competitive tendering process. The savings generated to date by the boards amount to about £1·2 million per year and it is important to recognise that those savings are retained by boards for the benefit of the education service.
Although the boards have been making good progress on a voluntary basis, it is nevertheless necessary, in my view, to provide a firmer legislative framework for the policy.
I emphasise that the order does not cover compulsory privatisation or compulsory contracting out. Boards will continue to be responsible for the provision of services and their direct labour organisations will be entitled to tender for the work. Indeed all the education and library board contracts have to date been won by the boards' direct labour organisations. It is important to understand that boards will specify and monitor the outputs and standards of service they require, whether the service is provided "in-house" or by private contractors. In that way legislation will not mean a lowering of standards, as some people suggest; rather it will provide for greater choice, leading to improved efficiency and better services.
Part III of the order contains important provisions that will bring the education and library boards into line with the operation of competitive tendering of district councils in Northern Ireland. In particular, article 22 will allow my Department to specify information which contractors will be required to provide if they wish to tender for work. That is designed to counter the possibility of fraudulent exploitation of the tendering process, and to act as a filter for any attempts by non bona fide contractors to win contracts. That safeguard will be available, if required, to combat any such threat. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) for his obvious support.
I shall now discuss the second part of the order—article 28 and its related schedule 2—in detail. They deal with the introduction of an option for 100 per cent. capital funding for voluntary schools. I shall explain later why it is an option.
Voluntary schools are at present eligible for 85 per cent. grants on capital works. Many schools are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their share of the capital cost, at a time when additional accommodation is especially required to meet education reform curriculum requirements. Against that background, detailed discussions took place last year with the voluntary school authorities. As a result of agreement reached in those discussions, the order provides that a voluntary school that is prepared to change management arrangements to ensure that no single interest has a majority on the board of governors will be eligible for 100 per cent. capital funding. That is an option for all voluntary schools, whether under Catholic or other management.
The new arrangements will not, and are not intended to, affect the existing ethos of any voluntary school. The trustee parent and teacher representatives are likely to continue to reflect the ethos of the school. Before appointing its nominees, the Department of Education will consult with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools in the case of Catholic maintained schools and with the board of governors in the case of voluntary grammar schools. No school will be obliged to adopt the new arrangements; that is why they remain optional. All voluntary schools may retain their existing management arrangements, but if they do so capital grants will continue to be paid at the existing rate of 85 per cent. There are obviously cost implications in paying higher capital grant rates. I can confirm, however, that that additional pressure on the education budget has been fully taken into account when reaching decisions about public expenditure allocations over the next three years.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If a Roman Catholic maintained school takes that option, does it come out from under the CCMS directly on to the board, or does it remain under the council with its particular disciplinary regulations?

Mr. Ancram: It remains under the CCMS, but it falls under the arrangements that effectively apply to controlled schools in terms of their capital grant. To that extent, we are trying to put all schools on the same footing.
The option of 100 per cent. capital funding to the voluntary school sector reinforces the Government's targeting social need policy. Schools serving areas of social deprivation will not be prevented from providing adequate accommodation for their pupils because of difficulties in raising voluntary funds. The new arrangements will ensure equity of funding across all sectors and equality of funding for all pupils. Finally, they represent a new partnership between voluntary schools and the public authorities which reflects a degree of confidence and trust in one another.
I shall now discuss the amendments made by article 31. They are designed to complement the tighter controls being exercised in awarding premature retirement compensation to teachers, following a recent report by the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that the purpose is simple: to allow compensating authorities to impose a charge equivalent to all or part of the award made, when they have good reason to believe that the organisation


responsible for deciding the award has not acted in accordance with the purpose of the compensation scheme, or has made an excessive award.
As a result of consideration during the consultation period, the recovery provisions have been further clarified, including the facility to phase recovery over a maximum period of 10 years. Their substance and effect are nevertheless the same as in the original proposal.
For some time, boards have been seeking authority from my Department to raise and retain revenue through commercial activities that would be complementary to their existing statutory services and activities. Article 32 is designed to meet that requirement. Any such activity will, of course, be subject to the approval of the Department and must not be detrimental to boards' primary educational responsibilities. Any revenue in that way will, as in the case of savings secured through competitive tendering, be available to boards for the improvement or development of the education services for which they are responsible.
The draft order also makes provision in article 34 and schedule 3 for the amalgamation of the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council and the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council into a single body, to be known as the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment.
Following the 1989 Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order, the two councils were set up separately because at that time the Government felt that it was important that when the reforms were being introduced there should be separate organisations to ensure that the exigencies of assessment—in other words, what could be tested—did not constrain or determine what should be taught in schools. Now that the programmes of study and the attainment targets are in place, however, the Government believe that the time is right to take forward the development of the curriculum and the assessment arrangements in a holistic way so that each can be seen to be supportive of and consistent with the other. I believe that that will establish an effective and integrated system which will work to the best advantage of schools, pupils and parents.
In the proposal for the draft order, article 37 limited the number of boards of governors of which a person can be a member to three. The reason behind that was that being a member of a school board of governors is a challenging and time-consuming task and it is unreasonable to expect a volunteer—for that is what governors are—to be able to devote the time and effort necessary to sustain a worthwhile contribution to more than three boards of governors at once. That is especially true since most governors are already holding down jobs and many, such as education and library board members, also have other pressing demands on their free time.
Having said that, convincing arguments were made during consultation that I should be prepared to consider exceptions to that rule for individuals with particular expertise, categories of people who are required to be appointed, or simply in circumstances where it would be in the interests of schools to have certain individuals on more than three boards of governors at once. In response to those arguments, the proposal was amended to give my Department discretion to approve membership of more than three boards in individual cases.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken on board some of the

representations that have been made to him. Will he accept that some people have given voluntary service in a dedicated way and have contributed much to education in Northern Ireland? Will he give an undertaking to the House that the order will not be used adversely against those in a controlled sector and that the exceptions will not be allowed only in the maintained sector?

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate why the hon. Gentleman raises that point and I have had representations made to me about it. There are instances, such as when the instrument of government of a school requires a certain office bearer to be a governor, when it may not be possible to restrict the number of boards to three. There were suggestions that that affected one denomination and not the other. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I have effectively outlined three areas of criteria and I intend to exercise the discretion that this gives me in an even-handed way.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that response, but Ministers are transient and officials guide successive Ministers. May we have something more permanent than, the commitment of a Minister, although I respect him and accept his undertaking, because this is legislation for the future as well as the present?

Mr. Ancram: All I can say is that I have laid out the criteria that the change in the order is designed to meet. Those are the criteria that I and my Department intend to operate. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and it will be on the record.
I have made a number of other changes in the order before the House, partly in response to consultation and partly in response to changed circumstances. I have withdrawn the provision to establish a system of statementing appeals tribunals. There was a clear view during consultation that independent tribunals would be superior and I wish to consult further about that.
I have also withdrawn the provision to change the timing of key stage 2 assessment for use in the transfer procedure. I know that that has caused some concern in the Province. I am convinced that assessment outcomes should not be used in this way and that separate arrangements based on the curriculum followed by each pupil are necessary for transfer purposes.
I have removed provisions for the amalgamation of institutions of further education in different board areas, simply because no such amalgamations are planned. On further education, I have responded to representations from teachers' unions by including provisions to require my Department, before making a determination, to amalgamate institutions of further education and to consult with associations which are representative of staff and students.
As I said earlier, the remaining provisions in the order are largely technical and administrative. I could cover a lot more, but I know that this hour and a half is very valuable and I wish to allow hon. Members as much time as possible to raise any points, to which I shall do my best to reply in detail. At this stage I shall go no further into the details. Nevertheless, this is an important and significant, if somewhat varied, order and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: On behalf of, I hope, everyone in the House, I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a personal milestone. Fifteen years ago today you entered the House as the hon. Member for


Pontefract and Castleford. I offer you my sincere congratulations on staying the pace and I wish you a happy anniversary as a Member of Parliament—I hope that will ensure that I am called again.
The order contains no fewer than 54 articles and five schedules. To describe this legislation as wide ranging would be an understatement. The Government appear to have cobbled together a series of individually important education changes and thrown them all into a general document, and allowed very little time in which the provisions could be comprehensively scrutinised or debated.
Many Members from Northern Ireland make a point consistently about the awful practice of using Orders in Council. We are not allowed to amend the order. As on most other occasions, it is rather like the curate's egg—in some parts it is good and in other parts it is very bad. Under those constraints, I shall attempt to highlight some of the Labour party's concerns about the Government's proposals. There are many concerns, but I have time to highlight only a few.
I am told that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Under-Secretary of State, is building a reputation as a listening Minister. Only last week during Question Time, the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said:
The Minister is establishing a reputation already as a listener".—[Official Report, 21 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 376.]
The Minister needs to work harder on that image because, although he may have listened to the disquiet expressed during the consultation period on the draft order, he has paid scant attention to the many contributions that his Department has received. It has received contributions from organisations such as the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, the Irish National Teachers Organisation, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers and the Northern Ireland Council of Trade Unions. Each of those organisations, which represent those working day to day in Northern Ireland schools and colleges, have expressed serious reservations about the Government's proposals.
The Minister has refused to heed the warnings from the professionals in favour of pursuing his Government's rigid dogma. Instead of attempting to tackle the crisis of confidence in the Government's botched education reforms, he has decided to implement compulsory competitive tendering, a move opposed by all the organisations to which I referred.
Part II of the order makes provision for the contracting out of public services. These are measures which have already been introduced in other parts of the United Kingdom, as we know to our cost, and they have had disastrous consequences for those working in the public sector. The experience of compulsory competitive tendering in the rest of the United Kingdom has meant that in the past year alone 49,000 men and women have lost their jobs in local government. Under the compulsory competitive tendering regime, many now have poorer conditions of employment and, for the second year running, they have had no pay increase. To repeat such an abysmal experience of job losses and worsening conditions

of employment in Northern Ireland, a region already seriously trailing the rest of the United Kingdom, would be nothing short of a disaster.
The Opposition want to see efficiency in those defined activities contained in part II of the order. That includes the cleaning of buildings, catering and the maintenance of grounds and vehicles. Improved efficiency means maintaining value for money and a high-quality service which is often best provided directly. However, for those services which are eventually provided, it should be for the relevant board to make the decision.
The Labour party does not want Northern Ireland's schools to experience the corner-cutting, slap-dash decline in quality of service and working conditions and, worse, the decline in jobs, that is all too familiar under compulsory competitive tendering.
I wish to ask the Minister some questions. Will he give further details of how contracts will be handled under the new arrangements? Will contracts be phased, and, will all the services listed in part II under article 4 be tendered for on the same day, or will boards be given different commencement dates? What procedures will the listening Minister establish to ensure that full consultation takes place as to the way in which contracts will eventually be phased?
Included in the restrictions and conditions in part II is the requirement for a board to invite tenders. Will the Minister confirm that when the required number of invitations to tender has been issued the board will be under no further obligation to invite other contractors to tender?
Most important, the Minister will be aware that by putting previously public services out to tender in Northern Ireland he leaves the process open to particular and sinister abuse by organisations seeking to extend their influence into the listed activities contained in part II. Will the Minister assure the House that if a board has major reservations about a particular contractor, it will be able to exercise total discretion and use such reservations as a relevant factor in the evaluation of that contractor's tender?

Mr. Ancram: I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's question more fully at the end of the debate. In my opening remarks I mentioned that three of the boards were already substantially contracting out, and that there were savings of £1£ ·2 million last year. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that some of the fears and accusations that he has expressed have been realised during that voluntary contracting-out period?

Mr. Stott: Our experience of compulsory competitive tendering in Great Britain is that it is bad in principle. It has led to many local government workers losing their jobs, and people employed by the organisations that win the contracts find that their terms of employment are worse than they were hitherto.
Will the Minister ensure that during the tendering process his Department will require that a board must insist on obtaining information about potential employees—including their previous work history and national insurance status—as already happens in Northern Ireland during compulsory tendering for local authority work?
Part III of the order applies restrictions to the scope of the factors that boards can consider when awarding contracts. By prohibiting a board from asking detailed questions about the terms and conditions of employment of


a competitor's employees, the Government are removing a board's capacity to maintain high standards in employment and working conditions, a theme to which I continually return. Yet again, the Government are content to reduce working standards. Instead of looking at the overall picture, they are merely looking at the figures which the Minister outlined. That kind of attitude results in reduced employment protection and leaves the United Kingdom with the lowest paid work force in Europe and a high level of unemployment.
I fear that the Government's plans will be all the more devastating for Northern Ireland, which has traditionally relied on the public sector for employment. I warn the Minister that Northern Ireland cannot afford an increase in the only figure with which I am concerned—the unemployment figure—which is already obscenely high.
Part IV of the order provides for the amalgamation of two or more institutions of further education; it does not provide for any significant consultation process before such an amalgamation. Surely the listening Minister will wish to hear from those who work in the colleges, the parents of those who attend those colleges and the wider community, all of whom share a stake in their local institutions of further education. Will the Minister ensure that provision is made for a concerned party to make known its anxieties prior to any amalgamation?
To achieve the required standards and implement change, the education service ultimately depends on the quality of its teachers and lecturers. Although many such people have already positively responded to the added pressures of education reform, the onslaught of Government legislation is demanding so much of their energy and commitment that the quality of provision for pupils and students in schools and colleges is in danger of being lowered. If that is to be avoided, it will be necessary not only to employ the most effective forms of in-service training, advisory and support services to assist teachers in implementing change, but to win the vital endorsement and support of parents, teachers, employers and members of the local community.
It is regrettable that the order does nothing to bridge the ever-widening gap between the Government and those who work in and use the education service. Instead, the Minister and his colleagues are intent on selling our schools in the marketplace. The Minister should concentrate on supporting teachers and freeing them from the bureaucracy of previous reforms. Instead, the Government, through the order, consider that it is more important to give the education and library boards in Northern Ireland a lesson in free market philosophy.
I said earlier that the order is like the curate's egg. It is unfortunate that we do not have a proper procedure whereby we can amend it and fashion a better one. The problems contained in the order outweigh its benefits, and I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: One of the great problems that faces Northern Ireland is the way in which legislation passes through the House. Here we have this massive order—77 pages of it—so how can we possibly deal with it in one and a half hours, particularly when no one is permitted to table an amendment to it?
Consultation is all very well, but we were elected to the House and we have the final responsibility for scrutinising legislation and seeking to amend it. This huge order has many ramifications, as outlined by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and by other hon. Members in their interventions in the Minister's speech. The order should be subject to a great deal of care and attention, because parts of it disturb us and because it is difficult to understand the real meaning of other parts. I had great difficulty understanding it.
The order consists of 57 pages dealing with 50 articles, and another 20 pages dealing with schedules. The schedules repeal parts of many Acts, but they also significantly amend many others. It seems that the new way of passing legislation is to introduce a schedule to a particular order, and then to make some vast change to a previous Order in Council. Anyone who wishes to take part in the debate will find it difficult to deal adequately with what is before us tonight.
A provision in the order states that a maintained school can return to the voluntary sector. I shall ask the Minister again, how many schools qualify for that option? It has been mentioned that if a school were a voluntary school in 1967 it would qualify, but how many such schools in the Province are in that category and could take that option? How many are Roman Catholic maintained schools and how many are now generally called state schools? How many schools belong to some Protestant body and could be named as Protestant? We need to know who can opt out. and how far that net could be cast.
I shall not deal with the issue of compulsory competitive tendering because I largely agree with what has been said. I know that CCT meant large redundancies in the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland; now we see that the Housing Executive is not capable of dealing with matters on its new basis, about which I am especially worried.
I should like to address some religious aspects of the order. The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) asked how much of the order was opposed by the Protestant Churches—the Church of Ireland, the Irish Presbyterian Church and the Methodist Church. The Minister said that some parts of the order were opposed by those Churches. Will he be more forthcoming and tell us exactly which parts?
Article 47 deals with collective worship and complaints about religious education, which is of grave importance in Northern Ireland. Do parents still have the right to make a complaint about the type of religious education that their child is offered? Do parents have the right to withdraw their child from that sector of religious education? Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that practices that have arisen in some schools, whereby teachers tell children that when they get home they should not tell their parents where they were taken that day and then take the children to religious services other than their own religious services, will no longer occur?
I am absolutely opposed to that practice. Parents have the right to decide what religious service their children attend and they have the right to withdraw their children, from religious instruction, education or whatever it is called—even if it is for mutual understanding, which think is the correct term—if they so desire. That principle should be upheld. I want the Minister to tell the parents of Northern Ireland whether that principle will continue to be upheld because I anticipate great dangers in that matter.
I believe in a non-sectarian school system and believe that there should be a one-school system in Northern Ireland that is supported by the public purse and that should not be tied to any religious denomination. However, ministers of the various Churches whose children also attend school should have the right of access at certain times to the desired type of religious instruction for their children. If we began to move towards that approach, there would be a great difference in our education system. I want the Minister to explain what the amendments in article 47 mean and what their practical effect will be.
Will the Minister also tell us about the disciplinary procedures which are suggested in the order that concern those who attend various schools? Article 39 outlines the requirement to set up disciplinary arrangements in schools. Will the disciplinary arrangements that are to be made by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools give the children in those schools the right of appeal to a tribunal which, it is suggested, is to be set up by the board?
The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools wanted to close one school in north Antrim, but the parents of the children at the school wanted to keep it open. When it came to a decision, the CCMS closed the school in opposition to all the families. When the families tried to lodge an appeal, the Minister concerned said that the council had made the decision, that was that and the school had to close.
That example covers one aspect of the right of appeal, but I am concerned about the idea of expelling children from the school. I understand from the order that if a child is expelled, the parents will have the right to appeal to a tribunal set up by the board. Will that right also cover the schools that come within the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools? I cannot find reference to that in the order. Perhaps I have read it incorrectly, but it seems that the appeals systems should be the same in both areas of education, especially when the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools moves towards full Government payment for all the services that it is to provide. If it is to be responsible for the entire subsidising and payment of all Catholic schools that opt out for this approach, surely the schools should come under the same tribunal disciplinary board. Will the Minister help me on that issue so that I can understand the order correctly and exactly determine what will happen?
Will the Minister also further explain how much schools will have to pay for library services? I fear that we are in an era leading to schools that were previously serviced by libraries having to pay in future, and that could be a heavy expenditure. I do not know how the system worked before, but I should like to know how the Minister envisages it will work in future and what price will have to be paid by individual schools for the service. On such serious matters of administration, and knowing the Government's attitude towards demanding payment, I should like to know how heavy that expenditure will be.
Will compulsory competitive tendering as it applies to the obligations entered into for the building and re-equipping of schools be applied to schools under the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools? Does it cover both sections or do the Catholic maintained schools not have to enter CCT? The Minister needs to make that point absolutely clear.
I know that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I have already made my protest about the shortness of the time available. I shall conclude because I do not want to prevent any Northern Ireland Member from having the opportunity to speak. I hope that if the Minister does not have time to reply fully at the end of the debate, he will promise to answer our questions by letter so that we have a firm answer to our queries.

Mr. Ancram: indicated assent.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I see the Minister nod his head at that.

8 pm

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Minister will be aware of my reservations about participating in debates on Orders in Council. I shall not repeat what I have said on many occasions. Suffice it to say that I hope that we are getting to the stage when my protestations and those of my colleagues about Orders in Council will no longer be necessary. In the light of the present situation in Northern Ireland, it is especially important that those who are being asked to eschew political violence and to adhere to the democratic path should not find anything in the procedures of this House that will disillusion them or make that plea seem meaningless.
Part II deals with competition. Article 4 defines the activities currently carried out by the education and library boards in Northern Ireland that the Government have initially earmarked for compulsory competitive tendering—cleaning, catering, ground maintenance, and the repair and maintenance of vehicles. Can the Minister elaborate on paragraph (2) and tell us which other activities are likely to be added to the list for CCT and what he envisages the time scale to be?
Will the Minister accept that the added burden of responsibility on the boards for managing changes in the education service is such that they would benefit from more time to phase in and monitor CCT, bearing in mind the restrictions and conditions with which the boards must comply in respect of those activities?
Article 7 requires boards to publish in at least two local newspapers and at least one trade publication a notice giving details of functional work that they intend to carry out. In the absence of any suitable widely circulating trade-related journal in Northern Ireland, would it not be more effective to require publication in all three Northern Ireland daily newspapers?
Articles 9 to 11 deal with accounts, financial objectives and reports for the financial year in respect of defined activities. Are the accounting arrangements outlined compatible with the current basis on which board accounts are prepared—that is, on the basis of receipts and payments rather than on income and expenditure—or will alternative accounting procedures be required as a result of CCT?
I note that under article 11 a board will be required to publish a report for the financial year by the following 30 September and that a copy must reach the Department by 31 October, after which an auditor will be appointed by the Department and will give his written opinion both to the Department and to the board. The financial report will be open to public scrutiny on request at a time and place published by the board, and copies will be available on request—and on payment, I believe. That is welcome and is a further step in public accountability, as is the


requirement that a copy of functional work specifications within a defined activity, whether the work is being carried out by the board or not, will be made available to interested parties.
I welcome the statement in article 16(3) that before making an order under article 16 the Department "shall consult the boards". But that statement will be taken with a pinch of salt and would be more welcome if it could be guaranteed that the Department would engage in meaningful consultation. We have had many examples of fairly meaningless consultation—on health matters and planning, for example—in which representations to departmental officials have too often been ignored.
There is no reference in the order to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, although CCT will almost certainly have serious implications in terms of the continuity and security of employment of board personnel. Difficulties will arise in the event of boards' bids being undercut and awarded to those who win contracts by engaging staff under poorer conditions of employment and at lower wages than those currently enjoyed by board employees.
What checks and balances can the Minister offer in the likely event of unscrupulous contractors having the opportunity to cut corners in a way that may bring the most undesirable people into close contact with vulnerable young children? The boards know what is required, but by maintaining their standards they will end up competing on an uneven playing field.
Part IV deals with amalgamations of institutions of further education. It has already been recognised that the Department of Education has the power to determine which institutions should be amalgamated, and progress on that issue has been made by voluntary arrangement and agreement between the boards of governors and the education and library boards. The Department should seek to ensure—this is especially important in a constituency such as mine—that students in rural areas do not become further disadvantaged by finding themselves at too great a distance from the institutions at which further education courses are provided.
It must be nonsense to propose that any new centre of higher education planned for Northern Ireland should be situated where it would almost certainly fail to attract the widest possible cross-community student enrolment. One hopes that the Minister will look carefully at the implications of some of the proposals being made in that respect.
On compensation costs for premature retirements, with the proviso:
Where there appears to a board to be good reason",
the board or the Department in certain circumstances may direct that


"(a) a specified amount shall be deducted from the budget share of the school in any single specified financial year; or
(b) a specified amount shall be deducted from the budget share of a school in each financial year for such period (not exceeding 10 years) as may be specified, in respect of premature retirement compensation costs of the board in relation to a member of the staff of the school."
I do not know what that means. Will the Minister elaborate on that and give us an example of a good reason for deducting such costs from the budget of a school or a college?
On article 33, new article 119A is to be inserted in the 1989 order about the formation of companies in connection with institutions of further education. Can the Minister

advise whether there are any restrictions on the period for which loans can be granted before repayment is required? Is the governing body or company when formed permitted to seek external finance in the commercial market, or will loans be restricted to a governing body to company arrangement?
Will the proposed changes in article 36 to article 6 of the 1986 order mean that boards will be committed to providing home tuition immediately a child ceases to attend achool? Will the proposed changes make it more difficult to get a child back to school, where that is a better option?
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) earlier intervened in respect of the change to article 12 of the 1986 order reducing the number of boards of governors on which members can sit from five to three. The restriction will, I fear, cause difficulty in arranging for each school and college governing body to have a serving board member, thereby providing a direct link between the board and its schools and colleges—a retrograde step.
Will the Minister clearly indicate that there will be flexibility on that issue and that there is no hidden agenda to limit further the direct representation by board members on behalf of schools and colleges? The order seems to be full of ambiguities and there are many matters that are not clear. I hope that the Minister will realise that, if we had a Bill passing through the House, we would have had a much fuller opportunity to clarify the situation and perhaps put right any deficiencies.
In conclusion, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, through the order, he is taking the opportunity in schedules 4 and 5 to correct a deficiency in the Education Reform Order 1989 relating to grant-maintained integrated schools. We have had that deficiency for four years. I think that the Minister will agree that that is not good enough. I hope that, in future, Bills will be introduced so that such things do not occur.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Everyone is supposed to be interested in Northern Ireland at the moment. The media, newspapers and television are full of Northern Ireland concerns. Northern Ireland politicians and anybody who has a word of interest to speak on Northern Ireland are eagerly being interviewed.
Education is supposed to be a matter of major concern. Many people in the Labour party have educational backgrounds. When I came to the House, I found that, initially, it was impossible to get on the Education Reform Bill Committee, because there were so many hon. Members with educational backgrounds from which to pick. We are now dealing with Northern Ireland and education issues. We should have a massive concern for those matters, as they are not issues of minor significance. We are dealing with competitive arrangements, education' and libraries, the issuing of contracts and funding arrangements, some of which arise from earlier legislation that has passed through the House. There are many items with which we should concern ourselves.
Some hon. Members present tonight represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. Other hon. Members are here on duty. They are doing their duty well, from the Front Benches and other positions, but Back Benchers are absent. Some hon. Members are here as Whips. There are


hon. Members here as Parliamentary Private Secretaries. There is only one hon. Member present, as far as I can see, from the Back Benches who is not associated with Northern Ireland. We are supposed to be in a situation where Northern Ireland is of overwhelming consideration.
We have seen 100 per cent. attendance from the Democratic Unionist party. We have had the entire Popular Unionist party here—we always have 0 per cent. or 100 per cent. We have seen nearly half of the Ulster Unionist party. We have not seen anybody from the Social Democratic Labour party—my sister party. It is supposed to be involved with social and economic affairs, but it is not here on this occasion.
I attempted to speak in last Friday's debate on Northern Ireland issues. I had to settle for three interventions and a point of order. I have come tonight to listen to what is taking place. I am no expert in terms of all the details that are contained in the measure. I came to find things out, because I have an interest in education and Northern Ireland. The opportunity is here for me to speak, whereas there was no opportunity on Friday. We are in a quite disgraceful situation as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. We should be concerned about the issues.
The procedures of the House, in which Northern Ireland issues are marginalised—the Order in Council procedure—means that we do not deal with the matters properly. There is no encouragement for people to be here. Should not people be here to try to change the situation and push for changes because they have an interest in Northern Ireland and educational matters?

Mr. Peter Robinson: As the hon. Gentleman wants to change things for the better in terms of the way that legislation and other matters relating to Northern Ireland are dealt with, would he support the introduction of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Barnes: I certainly would. If the Labour party was seeking not to involve itself in that, I would offer myself as someone who could be involved in that Committee. I should say to the Democratic Unionist party, and to other Ulster Unionists, that I should like to see their involvement in the British-Irish parliamentary body, because we would then have a cross-fertilisation on education in matters dealt with by that body and matters that could be dealt with by the Select Committee.
Education could not be a more important matter for us to discuss in the context of the situation in Ireland. The problems within Ireland—for example, the role of the Catholic Church in education—spill over into Northern Ireland. Teacher training colleges do not have a fair share of the communities because there is a Catholic teacher training college, and the state provision tends to be Protestant. Those are matters with which we should concern ourselves.
The leader of the DUP concentrated some of his remarks on article 47 which was about complaints relating to religious education and collective worship. In so doing, he mentioned the position of education for mutual understanding in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I need more information about education for mutual understanding, but it seems to me that the Government are attempting a fruitful and worthwhile activity in that area so that there is understanding in

education about the two traditions that exist, which spill over a great deal into education matters. But the hon. Gentleman suggested that the opt-out should apply also to education for mutual understanding. As I see it, education for mutual understanding is not just a matter of religious education; it concerns the cultural traditions that exist in Northern Ireland and is a matter of great social importance. Such education should be opted into rather than opted out of, because if it is conducted correctly, people will begin to understand each other's traditions and wish to share in and draw from them. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that matter in his reply and help me to understand the hon. Gentleman's position.
Education and Northern Ireland are both matters with which we should concern ourselves. I hope that the message will percolate beyond these Benches and beyond the pages of Hansard and will be heard by hon. Members who are not present tonight, some of whom have very high profiles on Northern Ireland issues and some of whom were here last Friday. I will not mention their names, because I did not put letters on the board asking them to be here, but I hope that in future they will attend debates such as this. I am talking about people who have ideas about the role of Gerry Adams, about talks and other issues and who should have been here tonight to contribute, in interventions if the opportunity did not arise for them to do so in speeches.

Mr. Ancram: I suspect that I shall not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), but I agree with him that it is sad that not many mainland Members are present tonight. During my shortish period as a Northern Ireland Minister, it has struck me that the more our parliamentary colleagues who are not from Northern Ireland know about the life of the Province and its difficulties, the more understanding there will be of the major problems that exist there. I hope that, in the coming weeks and months, the hon. Gentleman and I will be able to encourage more of our colleagues to attend debates such as this.
It is a matter of some disappointment to me that, on this occasion, we have not heard anything from the Liberal Benches. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has been in his place throughout, is not usually a reticent man and I should have thought that he would have much to say on the subject of education in Northern Ireland in particular.

Mr. Don Foster: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I see that I have tempted the hon. Gentleman to his feet.

Mr. Foster: Only yesterday, I had the opportunity to pay my first visit to Northern Ireland and to have a look at its education system. I knew that a number of Northern Ireland Members wished to speak and felt that on this occasion it would be somewhat impertinent of me to speak in the debate. A number of questions that I would have asked have been asked by other hon. Members.
Incidentally, I was delighted to see that only yesterday, in an interview in the Belfast Telegraph, the Minister pointed out that he recognised the considerable overload being experienced by teachers in Northern Ireland and


expressed his willingness to slow down the pace of reform. I only wish that the Secretary of State for Education in England would follow similar advice.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous. He knows that the Dearing report has made certain recommendations as regards the curriculum in England and Wales, and that that report does not apply to Northern Ireland. That is why I, as Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, have had to take decisions. If the hon. Gentleman reads carefully the words that I used, rather than those attributed to me in the first paragraph of the article, he will see that I said that there "could be" serious problems of overload and that because that suggestion had been made I had asked the Curriculum Council to look into the primary curriculum and, following consultation with schools and teachers, to make representations to me in April so that if there are problems, they can be resolved. I have made it clear all along that there is no difference between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and myself in this and that we are both looking for a system that works.
Inevitably, many hon. Members have commented on the procedures by which we take orders such as this through the House. I repeat that the Government are always willing to listen to suggestions for improving legislative procedures, but there are good reasons—and hon. Members know them—why Orders in Council are used for Northern Ireland, and any changes would have substantial implications, not least for the House of Commons. I think that it can be said in general—and this has also been said before—that direct rule, under which the present system has grown up, was introduced as a temporary measure and that we would all wish to see responsibility devolved back to Northern Ireland in matters such as education. That is what we are all striving for, in different ways and from different directions.
Unfortunately, by the very nature of the order, which is detailed and technical, it is difficult to get a theme running through my reply. A number of specific and detailed questions have been asked and I will try to respond to them. If I fail to respond to any tonight, I will try to answer them in correspondence once I have had time to reflect on what hon. Members have said. I give that undertaking to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who was right to see me nodding when he made that suggestion.
It was something of a disappointment to me, given that this is a major order covering many areas of education in Northern Ireland and matters of great importance to schools and children in Northern Ireland, that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) should have majored on the whole question of compulsory competitive tendering. His speech was a little off target because what we propose in the order is already being done by a number of the boards, without any of the fearful consequences that the hon. Gentleman predicted would follow from the proposals. There are dangers in going over the top, which I suggest the hon. Gentleman did this evening, without having closely examined what is happening.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of specific and serious questions and I will answer them as best I can. First, he asked whether all contracts will be phased. It will be necessary to consult boards before drafting regulations, so that proper account can be taken of the expiry dates of contracts that have already been competitively tendered. I

can assure the hon. Gentleman that full consultation will take place with each board to ensure that the competitive tendering programme is practicable and in the best interests of the education service.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the services listed in schedule 1 would become subject to competitive tendering as soon as the order became effective. The answer to that is no, because the Department intends that competitive tendering should be phased in over time. As I said, boards have already competitively tendered a significant proportion of the four defined services and, for that reason, the phasing arrangements will need to take account of the expiry of existing contracts. I repeat that the boards will be consulted fully on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question about whether the process might be open to paramilitary influence. Part III of the order contains important provisions, which will bring the education and library boards into line with the operation of competitive tendering in district councils in Northern Ireland. In particular, article 22 will allow my Department to specify information that contractors will be required to provide if they wish to tender for work. That provision is specifically designed to counter the possibility of fraudulent exploitation of the tendering process and to act as a filter for any attempts by non bona fide contractors to win contracts. That safeguard will be available as required to meet any such threat. We are conscious of the danger, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is met in the order.

Mr. Stott: indicated assent.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for nodding his assent.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether provision would be made for any concerned parties to make known their concerns before amalgamations of colleges take place. Article 26 requires the Department to carry out wide consultation before making a determination that two or more colleges should be amalgamated. The bodies to be consulted include the governing bodies of the colleges, the education and library board that manages the colleges and the staff and students of the colleges. The hon. Gentleman will accept that most of the bodies to which he referred are covered. But if any other bodies or individuals wished to express any views about any proposed amalgamation of colleges, I should be happy to take them on board before any decisions were made. As I said in my opening remarks, however, we have extended consultation to the staff and students of the colleges and I hope that that will be welcomed.
The hon. Member for Wigan asked about the low pay of staff involved in contracts. The interests of the education service are being assisted by the savings that are being generated by the boards in the competitive tendering of the four defined services. Savings of £1·2 million a year are retained by the boards for use in enhancing education services. The boards are satisfied about the financial benefits and other advantages that CCT will bring, especially where there are real pressures on available sources. Moneys saved by the boards will be used in improving the funding of schools, colleges, libraries and youth clubs. The hon. Gentleman spoke of value for money, which I hope he will accept is one of the major purposes of the order.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether, during the tendering process, boards will be allowed to ask about the terms and conditions of employers' staff. The answer is no. Article 20 deals specifically with non-commercial issues that cannot be raised by boards in considering contracts for defined services. It is specifically designed to prevent discrimination against employers and to ensure a level playing field for all those who are interested in competing for this work. Efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service demand that this provision be applied on grounds of equity.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of other questions, not least about the political affiliation of potential employers who might contract. I refer him to article 20(5) (6), which deals with the political, industrial or sectarian affiliations of contractors or their employees.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North made a number of significant and important points and asked a number of specific questions. He asked about maintained schools that might opt for voluntary status. No maintained schools have opted back to voluntary status and it is not likely that any will. The provision may be otiose, but it is appropriate to make it available until consultation has taken place with interested parties.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many schools might opt for 100 per cent. grant. Some 600 voluntary schools are potentially eligible for the new 100 per cent. arrangements. Of course, not all will necessarily decide to opt in this way. Existing schools can retain existing management arrangements, and if they do so they will still be entitled to only the capital grant rate of 85 per cent.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked about the new provision on appeals against expulsion applying to pupils in all schools. I can tell him that it does, including maintained schools, and I hope that that will reassure him.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister giving way on that point. Is he aware of the concern about children who have been suspended but not expelled? They have not been receiving an education, although it was suggested that they would receive home tuition, and, because they have not been expelled from school, they cannot attend another school. Has that been covered, because I have raised the issue with boards several times but have not received satisfactory answers?

Mr. Ancram: The main concern has arisen in connection with maintained schools, but the appeal provision applies to all schools, including maintained schools. Article 49(2), as revised by the draft order, requires the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools to prepare schemes for suspensions and expulsions in maintained schools.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does that remove responsibility from the board? In future, will the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools be responsible?

Mr. Ancram: The appeal provision is being applied even handedly across all areas of education. I understood that to be the main complaint, but I shall study what the hon. Member said and if there are any differences of emphasis I shall write to him.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The point that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is raising is important. Will maintained schools, including Roman Catholic schools, and state schools appeal to the same body?

Mr. Ancram: I have made it clear that the draft order requires the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools to prepare schemes for suspension and expulsions in maintained schools. I hope that hon. Members will write to me about their specific concerns, which I shall try to deal with.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister does not get the point. Under article 49,
the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools shall prepare a scheme specifying the procedure to be followed in relation to the suspension or expulsion of pupils from Catholic maintained schools.
It further says that every board shall make arrangements for an appeal system. Does that appeal system cover the Catholic maintained schools or only state schools?

Mr. Ancram: It covers both. I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's earlier point.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked whether a parent has a right to complain about the type of religious education and to withdraw a child from attendance at a religious service. The answer to both questions is yes.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked about education for mutual understanding. Is that covered by religious education, or by some other heading?

Mr. Ancram: I should like, if I may, to write to the hon. Gentleman about that point. I should like to check before giving an answer, but I can confirm the categorical assurance that I have given on the two points asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked about the closure of schools. There are well-established procedures for the closure of schools, including maintained schools, which require full public consultation and any objections are carefully considered before a final decision is taken by the Northern Ireland Office and myself. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made a detailed and thoughtful speech. He is not in his place, for which he offered his apologies and I understand why he cannot be here. I undertook to write to him to answer the questions that I could not answer tonight. He asked whether competitive tendering would be extended to other professional services, as envisaged in Great Britain in the Local Government Act 1992. He asked me to identify such services. I refer him to the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", which sets out the framework for the development of competitive tendering within the public sector, including professional or white collar services. The policy applies equally to the education service in Northern Ireland and we shall consider the scope for extending the present programme in the light of a recent study by consultants. Of course, we shall consult the boards fully before embarking on this course.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the boards' present accounting arrangements would be adequate for the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering. Boards will be required to maintain detailed trading accounts in respect of all competitive tendering contracts. The


Department will consult boards on the nature of those accounts and any changes required to present board financial accounts as a result of these provisions.
The hon. Gentleman went on to ask whether there would be a level playing field for all contenders in the compulsory competitive tendering process. The answer again is yes. Safeguards are built into the legislation to ensure that the private sector and boards' direct labour organisations are treated fairly and even handedly, which is important in any such system.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the limitation on membership of boards of governors, which several other hon. Members also mentioned. It might be helpful if I were to outline the type of exception that I have in mind. The first point to emphasise is that I would expect to make such exceptions only rarely. The purpose of the provision is not to provide a back door for making wholesale exceptions, which would merely make a well-balanced policy ineffective. However, I accept that there may be exceptional categories, individuals or circumstances which would warrant approval.
For example, one category that I shall be prepared to approve is where a school's instrument of governance specifies the holder of a particular office as a governor and where such an appointment could be made only by appointing a person to more than three boards of govenors. Similar problems may arise in schools where individuals are nominated from among the transferor interests on the board of governors of contributory primary schools. There may be individuals for whom it would entail serving on more than three boards of governors. A case might be made for an individual with particular expertise and the time available to share it with a number of schools.
Those examples make it clear that I expect the exceptions to relate to the particular circumstances and needs of the schools, and I would need to be convinced that the needs cannot otherwise be met. The important point is that the power to make exceptions exists, and I would exercise that power if a justifiable case were made.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also asked me to ensure that amalgamations of colleges do not result in students in rural areas having to travel too far to receive further education. He made the valid point that were that to be the case, there would in fact be discrimination against such students. The amalgamations which have been announced and which are already proceeding will not result in the closure of any existing sites for the provision of further education. That should ensure that students in rural areas continue to enjoy easy access to further education. However, I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned retirement compensation and asked what would be deemed a good reason to recoup it, as the provision allows. As I said in my opening remarks, the situation arises because of the concerns expressed by the Public Accounts Committee about the high cost of operating the scheme. A number of measures had to be taken to increase cost consciousness. They include placing a limit on the number of added years to be awarded and cash limits on awards for efficient discharge grounds. A board of governors that ignores such limits would give an education and library board good reason, as defined, to recoup excessive awards from the school budget. I hope that that example is of some help to the hon. Gentleman in understanding how what I admit is a somewhat obtuse provision will work.
At the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman also asked about the provision of a university site at Springvale and pondered whether it would further sectarianise higher education in Northern Ireland. I must point out that higher and further education in Northern Ireland has an outstanding record for providing facilities that attract students from all sides of the community. The Government would not want that tradition altered, and cross-community support must be an important criterion in any analysis. Any facility would have to be accessible to all communities in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I agree that there has been a mix at that level of education, but the Minister's remit also includes sport. Does he accept that to do away with Paisley park, a recreational area which has produced many outstanding athletes and sportsmen, would not only be detrimental to that part of the city but would not enhance sporting provision?

Mr. Ancram: That is not a matter currently before me, but I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman said and write to him.
The only outstanding question asked by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone dealt with exemptions for board members. He asked why the exemption would not extend to board members themselves. Each case will be considered on its merits, but it is not essential for the education and library board representatives on boards of governors to be board members. They will have commitments to the board and its committees as well as up to three boards of governors. That is a heavy commitment at a time when the responsibilities of boards of governors have already increased. It is therefore reasonable to exclude them.
We have had a very full debate, but I appreciate the fact that hon. Members may have wished to deal with many other details. If they care to write to me about any matters that have not been raised, I shall try to give them a full reply.
It is an important order because—

It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [22 October]:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 180.

Division No. 369]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brandreth, Gyles


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aspinwall, Jack
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butler, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carrington, Matthew


Bates, Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Beresford, Sir Paul
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clappison, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Booth, Hartley
Coe, Sebastian


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Congdon, David






Conway, Derek
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, Sir David


Couchman, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cran, James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Legg, Barry


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Leigh, Edward


Day, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Devlin, Tim
Lidington, David


Dicks, Terry
Lightbown, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Luff, Peter


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dunn, Bob
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Durant, Sir Anthony
MacKay, Andrew


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Elletson, Harold
Madel, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mans, Keith


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Marland, Paul


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Marlow, Tony


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evennett, David
Mates, Michael


Faber, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fabricant, Michael
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Merchant, Piers


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Milligan, Stephen


Fishburn, Dudley
Mills, Iain


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Monro, Sir Hector


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Moss, Malcolm


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Needham, Richard


French, Douglas
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gardiner, Sir George
Norris, Steve


Gill, Christopher
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gorst, John
Page, Richard


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Paice, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pawsey, James


Grylls, Sir Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hague, William
Pickles, Eric


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hannam, Sir John
Richards, Rod


Hargreaves, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Haselhurst, Alan
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hawksley, Warren
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hayes, Jerry
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hendry, Charles
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Sackville, Tom


Horam, John
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shersby, Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sims, Roger


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hunter, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jack, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Speed, Sir Keith


Jenkin, Bernard
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jones, Gwilym(Cardiff N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Spink, Dr Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spring, Richard


Key, Robert
Sproat, Iain


King, Rt Hon Tom
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





Stephen, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Ward, John


Streeter, Gary
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sumberg, David
Waterson, Nigel


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Whittingdale, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Thomason, Roy
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Willetts, David


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Walden, George
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Ainger, Nick
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Fyfe, Maria


Ashton, Joe
Gapes, Mike


Austin-Walker, John
Gerrard, Neil


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Harry
Godsiff, Roger


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bayley, Hugh
Graham, Thomas


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Grocott, Bruce


Benton, Joe
Gunnell, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hanson, David


Berry, Dr. Roger
Hardy, Peter


Betts, Clive
Harman, Ms Harriet


Blunkett, David
Heppell, John


Boateng, Paul
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Boyce, Jimmy
Hinchliffe, David


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Hood, Jimmy


Byers, Stephen
Hoon, Geoffrey


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Canavan, Dennis
Jamieson, David


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clapham, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Khabra, Piara S.


Clelland, David
Kilfedder, Sir James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kilfoyle, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Connarty, Michael
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lewis, Terry


Corston, Ms Jean
Livingstone, Ken


Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McAllion, John


Davidson, Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McCrea, Rev William


Denham, John
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Eagle, Ms Angela
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martlew, Eric


Fisher, Mark
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Michael, Alun






Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Rowlands, Ted


Milburn, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Simpson, Alan


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mudie, George
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Paul
Soley, Clive


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


O'Hara, Edward
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Olner, William
Steinberg, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stevenson, George


Paisley, Rev Ian
Stott, Roger


Parry, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Pickthall, Colin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pike, Peter L.
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wallace, James


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, Joan


Prescott, John
Watson, Mike


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Noes:


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Alan Meale and


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to

Resolved,
That the draft Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 2) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1755), dated 15th July 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be annulled.
At the start of the debate, I declare an interest as a paid parliamentary consultant to the National Union of Teachers. However, I want to point out that, in common with Conservative Members who have similar interests, I will not be speaking in a partisan way this evening.
The pay of teachers is yet another example of the Government's cavalier attitude towards teachers and the education of children in local authority and voluntary schools. The order which we prayed against in July and which we are debating this evening represents a further betrayal of teachers and is part of a death-by-a-thousand-cuts policy which the Government have had towards taxpayer-funded education services and those involved in providing them.
The House will recall the winsome words elaborating the Government's clear commitment by the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in the debates on the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill on 29 April and 6 June 1991. I should like to remind the House of some of those words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I also realise that, to get the high quality, well motivated and professional group of teachers that we require, teachers need a fair level of remuneration to reward ability and good performance ….With the establishment of a review body to determine the pay and conditions of teachers, the Bill will pave the way for that aim."—[Official Report, 29 April 1991; Vol. 190, c. 34.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that it was the essence of this machinery that the Government were setting up an independent body that would give advice to the Government in the light of all the evidence that it received. He said that the Government would implement the recommendations unless there were clear and compelling reasons why they should not. He said, "To repeat what I said before, the Government will not be giving to the review body a financial remit of the type that the interim advisory committee had. We shall reject recommendations only for clear and compelling reasons."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that one of the principal differences between the interim advisory committee and the review body was that the new body would not operate within a predetermined financial envelope. He said that the Government were submitting themselves to the objective judgment of a body which would recommend the right pay, terms and conditions for teachers. What a sick joke. However, that is par for the course for a Government prepared to say anything to win votes and raise hopes which so quickly and so often turn to dust.
Unfortunately, the pay review body has proved to be a spineless quango only too willing to straitjacket itself within the Government's own recommendations. When it has shown an air of independence, the Secretary of State has moved quickly to quash its recommendations, as he did this year over the review body's 1·5 per cent. increase for teachers which would have raised the total bill a further 0·3 per cent. because of a rounding-up exercise for teachers affected by the reduction of 243 salary combinations to 17.


It is therefore not a curious coincidence that last year the pay review body's recommendations were accepted unchanged in the run-up to the general election. During the previous two years, the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions recommended reducing the overall pay bill by 1·5 per cent. in 1980 and 1·7 per cent. in 1991. Of course, that pay is permanently lost to teachers. Remarkably, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned on Second Reading of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, there had been no real-terms increase in teachers' pay since 1987, another election year. However, in paragraph 120 of its report, the pay review body, in making its recommendations for 1993, said:
This is less than is needed in respect of recruitment, retention and motivation considerations taken as a whole".
Those are the very things that that body should have regard to—recruitment, retention and motivation. The pay review body is plainly in self-confessed dereliction of its duty in making recommendations which do not advance the cause of high-quality teaching and learning in our schools. Even its modest, inadequate pay recommendation was rejected by the Government, who forced their own deal on to teachers.
What price the independence of the pay review body? None whatsoever. Why should teachers' unions bother to submit evidence to a body which is not prepared to make recommendations in the best interests of teachers, children and schools and whose timid terms for teachers' pay in 1993 are rejected in any event by the Government in this order?

Mr. Harry Greenway: I take a very close interest in such matters. A few days ago, in my constituency I held a conference with all heads, chairmen of governors, and representatives of teachers, parents and children, with Sir Ron Dearing present. I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman appeared to predict—that is, by implication, unless teachers were paid at a level which he, by implication again, said that they are not being paid at, teaching would deteriorate. The evidence is to the contrary. Standards are rising for GCSE, A-levels and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that teachers are teaching as well as and as conscientiously as ever?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, teachers make every effort to be conscientious, but the Government's treatment of them does not help their morale. They are conscientious in spite of the Government's best efforts to undermine them. Their morale is certainly low.
A body which is not prepared to make recommendations in the best interests of teachers is hardly worth keeping in place. What are the clear and compelling reasons that force the Government to reject the pay review body's rather modest pay deal? Classroom teachers at every level of remuneration were worse off in April than they were last year by between £83 and £137. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, provided those figures to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in May. They are to be found in columns 497 and 498 of Hansard, if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education would like to read them.
Do the Government believe that the bad old days of reducing the value of teachers' pay will herald the dawn of a new age of high-achieving pupils and schools inspired by poorly paid but somehow highly motivated teachers? Most people would answer that question with a resounding "No". But there is a horrible chance that a Government who believed that their election victory in April 1992 would see the recovery begin the next day actually believe that this teachers' pay order will raise the rock-bottom morale of teachers. It will not. There is more in the order to undermine any possible threads of confidence that teachers might have had in the Government's pay policy for them.
The proposal on performance-related pay is a disaster, although it is typical of the arrogance in power that has marked the regime of the Secretary of State for Education. The document on teachers' pay deliberately ignores the views of the pay review body which were expressed in its report last year. The review body believed that the best approach would be to conduct a consultative exercise based on the whole school approach to performance with additional funding to implement it.
In this year's report, a pilot scheme to examine performance-related pay for heads and deputy heads was announced. The Secretary of State has well and truly elbowed the pay review body out of the way with his performance-related pilot pay scheme, which is outlined in the 1993 school teachers' pay and conditions document. His scheme will be based on individual performance. Surely individual performance is already covered by part III, paragraphs 6 and 7, on responsibility and excellence where up to five points and three points respectively can be gained, with the latter being available especially for classroom teaching.
What clear and compelling reasons caused the Secretary of State to ignore the pilot scheme of the pay review body and set up a scheme of his own? Incidentally, some heads have demanded to withdraw from his pilot scheme because they were misled by him about its establishment. I look forward to receiving an explanation from the Minister.
I am concerned that the pay review body seems to have had virtually no impact on the Government's action over the huge shortfall of incentive allowances in primary schools.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Since 1979, teachers' pay has increased by 57 per cent. in real terms, after allowing for inflation. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the fact that teachers' pay has increased so markedly is one of the reasons why standards have increased, more pupils are getting better GCSE results and more pupils are going on to further and higher education? The number of pupils going on to further and higher education has increased from 1:8 in 1979 to 1:4 now.

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier. I pointed out that teachers are paid less today in real terms than they were last year. The figures were provided by the hon. Member for Daventry. We might as well say that, since 1702, teachers' pay has increased in real terms. It is totally irrelevant to the fact that teachers' pay went down last year.
To return to the issue of the plight of primary school teachers, last year's report of the pay review body stated:
… despite the Government's acceptance of our recommendation for 26,000 extra incentive allowances in primary schools, only 4,000 such allowances were being paid.


What are the clear and compelling reasons for such a shortfall? When do the Government expect to honour their acceptance of the recommendation made by the pay review body last year?
Finally, I turn to the extremely important issue of remuneration for teachers who wholly or mainly teach children with special educational needs. About 2 per cent. of children with special educational needs have statements and about 18 per cent. of them have not. Under part III, paragraph 9, of the pay document that we are debating tonight, teachers of the 18 per cent. of children with special educational needs but no statements are excluded from any additional award. The recommendation of the pay review body in paragraph 99, appendix D, paragraphs 16–19, refers to an extra entitlement for teachers who
wholly or mainly teach children with special educational needs
without any reference to the specific need for the children to have received a statement.
Often the borderline between children who are with or without statements is thin. The Government's provisions in paragraph 9, limiting that extra point to teachers of children with statements only, is an extremely restrictive view of special educational needs. I hope that the Minister will explain why that straitjacket circumscribes the award to teachers of children with such needs when no such limits were mentioned in the pay review body's recommendations.
I know that it would be a miracle if the Minister were to respond positively to any of my requests. If he had the well-being of all teachers and children at heart, he would respond positively to all of them. Let him dare to be a Daniel and stand alone against the eccentric educational views of the Department in which he serves and thus win the praise of parents, pupils and teachers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): With the permission of the House, I shall refer later to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and will then seek to deal with each of them.
I must say immediately that, based on a significant number of visits that I have made to many schools, I refute utterly his allegation that teacher morale is at rock bottom.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I was being polite.

Mr. Squire: If that is being polite, I am enormously relieved that the hon. Gentleman was not being rude.
In all sincerity, having spoken to many teachers I can say that they are being let down by Opposition Members, who are spreading the word that morale is at rock bottom. That is not what I have found in the schools that I have visited, and that is important.
On 12 February 1993, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published the second report of the school teachers' pay review body. As is now well known, that report was a watershed. It made recommendations about the level of pay increase for the coming year and how it should be distributed, as review body reports customarily do. However, it did far more than that; it recommended far-reaching changes to the pay structure for classroom teachers.
Let me remind the House what the recommendations were. The previous 10-point standard scale, incentive allowances, incremental enhancements and discretionary scale points were to be replaced from 1 September by a

common 18-point pay spine for all classroom teachers. Teachers would move up the spine by earning points for experience, qualifications, responsibility and excellence —especially in the classroom. Extra points would also be awarded to teachers of children with special educational needs, and to those holding posts that were difficult to fill. Teachers' points scores would be reviewed every year.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When they are reviewed at the end of the year, is a ratchet in place, or can teachers slide back down the spine?

Mr. Squire: A safeguard is built into the initial spine to ensure that no teacher has lost out as a result of its adoption. Clearly, I cannot forecast the procedure for future years at this stage, but I think that I have dealt with my hon. Friend's query.

Mr. Stephen Byers: Can the Minister confirm that the order mentions a new pay spine of 18 points, with a difference of about 6 per cent. between them, whereas his Department's evidence for the pay review body recommends for next year a spine of 35 points with a difference of 3 per cent. between each? Can the Minister tell the House why his Department has recommended a totally different spine for next year?

Mr. Squire: One of the problems with debates in this place is that we can sometimes be a little behind the action. I am unable, and for that matter unwilling, to speculate about any aspect of the settlements for next year, not least because neither the hon. Gentleman nor I is aware what resources may be available.

Mr. Byers: rose—

Mr. Squire: Hold on, let me finish. The order relates to the first year of the 18-point scale. I cannot say what the circumstances will be next year, any more than the hon. Gentleman can. It would be foolish to speculate.

Mr. Byers: The cavalry may be coming over the hill. The Department's evidence, which has already been submitted to the pay review body for next year, talks about a 35-point scale because such a scale will be workable and flexible. By implication, the scale that the Minister proposes this evening is unworkable and inflexible.

Mr. Squire: I resent that completely. The hon. Gentleman must be living in another world. We are talking about a new scale. We expect there to be further changes as it develops over the years. Of course, there will be changes. The suggestion that it is possible with such a revolutionary change to get everything right first time is strictly for the birds.
As recommended by the STRB, adjustments were to be made in two stages, on 1 April and 1 September. My right hon. Friend accordingly made two pay and conditions orders. The first, simpler, order gave effect to the changes in salary rates from 1 April; the second brought in the new pay structure from 1 September. It is this second order to which the Opposition have objected. I believe that they are wrong to do so. Let us look at what the order actually does.
First, the order maintains teachers' pay at a very competitive level. Average teachers' pay is now nearly £21,000. Good honours graduates now have starting salaries of at least £12,600. In inner London their salaries could be more than £15,000. A typical department head in


a London secondary school now earns more than £26,400. Forty-five per cent. of teachers will be on or above point 11 of the spine, earning at least £21,400.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Squire: I will not give way too often as I know that other colleagues wish to speak.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has just given the figures for the average pay of teachers. Does he agree that these are the very people whom the Labour party would soak through higher taxation if ever it got back into government?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend reminds us of last year's discussions.
It is true that the overall increase in teachers' pay in 1993 was limited to 1·5 per cent., and that this will slightly reduce teachers' pay compared with the average pay of non-manual workers. But it will remove only a small amount of the relative increase of some 12 per cent. over the years 1990 to 1992. Teachers have done very well under this Government.
The order also brings in a pay structure which opens up new possibilities for the best classroom teachers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described the STRB's proposals last February as "imaginative and far reaching". He went on to welcome
the emphasis the STRB has placed on identifying and rewarding good classroom teaching".
He was right to do so. Prospects for those promoted to headships or deputy headships have always been good. The head of a typical primary school will now earn about £30,000, and the head of a typical secondary school outside London about £40,000. The salaries of the highest paid head teachers outside London will be well over £50,000, while heads of large secondary schools in London could earn £53,000, or even more if their responsibilities or performance are exceptional.
Similar opportunities now exist for high achievers in the classroom. The new pay spine which we introduced last month has 18 points. Experience and qualifications on their own will take teachers automatically to point 9 on the spine, £19,062, but they need not stop there. For those prepared to take on extra responsibilities, those who demonstrate excellence in their work, notably their classroom teaching, or those whom the school particularly wants to recruit or retain, there are further points available on the spine—18 in all, the highest of which brings a salary of £30,441.
I can think of no better way to bring about the improvements which we all want to see in our schools than by giving teachers a real incentive to improve their performance. I believe that the new structure will give governing bodies ample opportunities to exercise their discretion and reward good classroom performance.
Local education authorities will also have their part to play, by ensuring that enough funds are made available to schools. [Laughter.] It is interesting to detect a note of humour from the Opposition Front Bench. All hon. Members know—this does not divide the parties—that LEAs could make more rapid progress on the elimination of surplus places. On the basis of a survey carried out by the Department in 1991, it is estimated that there were then about 1·3 million surplus places in England. I am told that

the cost of maintaining those places is about £255 million a year. To put that in context, the review body has estimated that the pay bill for 1993–94 will be about £10·63 billion.

Mr. Byers: Will the Minister confirm that the local education authority with the highest number of surplus places is Essex? Will he also confirm that the LEA with the most pupils in grant-maintained schools is Essex? How can he reconcile those two facts?

Mr. Squire: Without notice, I am reluctant to confirm any such figures, but I can certainly confirm that Essex has a very large number of GM schools. As the hon. Gentleman knows, from 1 April the Funding Agency for Schools will have the power to review those schools and make recommendations about removing surplus places. I expected the hon. Gentleman to point out that what has happened in his own authority in the past few weeks provides the answer to those who ask about schools opting out and surplus places. The Ralph Gardner school, with the agreement of North Tyneside LEA, is to close, despite its application for GM status. I should have liked the hon. Gentleman to make that clear, if only to calm some of the more nervous brethren sitting near him.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council always funks taking away surplus places in Labour areas and does its best to imagine them in Conservative-controlled areas, thus attacking our outstanding good village schools and doing its best to close them?

Mr. Squire: If Lancashire LEA is prepared to take on the ire of my hon. Friend, it is a strong LEA indeed. But I can assure her that any proposals from LEAs, including Lancashire's, are given the greatest study by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If they are not reasonable in all the circumstances, closure proposals will be resisted.
The cost of maintaining surplus places at the moment is roughly 2 per cent. of the whole pay bill. If even a fraction of that were made available by LEAs, it would be extremely good news for teachers.
Most teachers in our schools are working extremely hard to ensure that their pupils receive the best possible education. Theirs is a difficult and challenging job, and I believe that they are worthy of the highest respect and praise. I have been very impressed by the teachers whom I have met and by the exciting things happening in our schools. I want to support teachers; I want the pay structure to be reformed to provide better rewards for the good teacher in the classroom. That is what I believe the new structure will achieve.
We now need to give schools time and space to learn to use the new structure. It may not be perfect in every detail and it will surely need refining in the light of experience, but we have taken an important step forward—

Mr. Tim Devlin: rose—

Mr. Squire: I am coming to the end.
The Government are immensely grateful to the STRB and to its founding chairman, Sir Graham Day, for its imaginative approach. We are also grateful for the thoughtful and constructive approach of the local authorities and teaching unions to the fundamental revision that was needed to the statutory school teachers' pay and conditions document.
I commend the order to the House and I resist this prayer.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Having listened to the Minister, I am sure that many schoolteachers will not be impressed by his arguments when they read the debate. On 6 June 1991, during discussions on the Third Reading of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Bill, I predicted to the House and warned the teaching profession of the consequences of trusting the Government and the then Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who had already, when Secretary of State for Health, betrayed the health workers.
With the order, my worst fears have been realised. In the Secretary of State's summing up of that debate on 6 June 1991, he accused Labour Members of showing
their true colours by voting against one of the most welcome and important Bills that the education service has seen in a generation."—[Official Report, 6 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 463.]
The Government showed their true colours that day when they attempted to deceive the teaching profession into believing that they were getting the only statutory truly independent pay review body.
Typically, the Government have broken their word, as they have done on many other occasions in the past 14 years. The pay review body, like its predecessor the interim advisory committee which was set up in 1987, is anything but an independent body. It is purely a front created by Governmnent to ensure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State could determine teachers' pay and conditions.
In the debate on 6 June 1991, I told the House that the Bill allowed the Secretary of State to choose the chairman and members of the review body and decide what it discussed, and also enabled him to amend its recommendations or to ignore them completely and implement his own. The review body is anything but independent. In a radio interview earlier that day, the Secretary of State denied that he had such powers. In the debate he said:
if the Secretary of State wishes to make a substantial modification to the review body's recommendations, he can do so only by obtaining Parliament's consent so to act."—[Official Report, 6 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 454.]
I would argue that he has failed to do that, or even bothered to attempt to do that. On Second Reading, the then Education Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), said:
The review body has to have regard to whatever directions the Secretary of State gives, but it does not have to abide by them."—[Official Report, 29 April 1991; Vol. 190, c. 112.]
The order makes a mockery of that statement.
Who is telling the truth and predicting the consequences accurately? I leave that for hon. Members to decide, but the pay review body's recommendations were ignored by the Government and today's debate is at the insistence of the Labour party. So much for the promises and words of the then Secretary of State and his Ministers of the time.
On that fateful day, teachers' negotiating rights were finally stripped away, with the expected consequences. Only our demands to debate the order can bring the Secretary of State to account for his decision to ignore his review body's recommendations and impose his misguided dogma, as we predicted at the time. He has imposed a derisory pay increase of half a penny in the pound for

teachers. Having encouraged the review body to develop one method of performance-related pay, he rejected its recommendations and imposed his own system through the designation of pilot schools for performance-related pay.
Interestingly, the Secretary of State said on Third Reading:
one of the principal differences between the interim advisory committee and the new review body is that the new body will not operate within a predetermined financial envelope.
He also said:
The Government are submitting themselves to the objective judgment of a body which will recommend the right pay, terms and conditions for teachers."—[Official Report, 6 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 433–34.]—
[Interruption.] I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that that was a joke. When I prepared my speech, I wrote down the same words. What a joke—the words could have been said by a comedian, and they probably were. The Government never had any intention of allowing a truly independent pay review body. The teachers' pay increase of 1·5 per cent. in 1993 was imposed dictatorially by the Government on the pay review body, which did not have the guts to oppose the Government. That is not surprising because its members —every one of them—are appointed by the Government. Even the pay review body's recommendation, which would have meant a mind-boggling increase of 1·8 per cent., was overruled.
All the Government's fine words of 1991 have meant nothing, and the review body has proved to be just a puppet of the Government. Teachers' pay continues to be eroded. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) gave statistics about pay increases in real terms since 1979. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in 1974 the average pay for teachers was 136 per cent. of non-manual earnings. At the end of the interim advisory committee era in 1990, it had dropped to 104 per cent. of non-manual earnings. By the time the next increase is due, it is projected that teachers' pay will have declined to 102 per cent. of non-manual earnings. In other words, teachers have seen their pay eroded over the last 10 to 15 years under the Government.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it was that between 1974 and 1979, under the last Labour Government—let us hope that it was indeed the last— teachers' pay increased by 6 per cent. in real terms, while between 1979 and today it has increased by 57 per cent.?

Mr. Steinberg: Teachers' pay has increased during the period of the Government's misrule of the economy, but their pay has not risen by as much as that of other non-manual earnings.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Lady has been on her feet about three times tonight—she might as well make a speech.
So much for the Government's so-called commitment to teachers and education. The sad facts are that, while teachers become more and more undervalued by the Government, standards cannot hope to be raised.
We are told that more teachers have been recruited into the profession. However, I will give a warning and I give it with great sincerity. There is no doubt that the recession has acted as a recruiting agent, but once the recession has ended—we are told by this hapless Government that it is


ending now—many of the recruits will leave to get better paid, less stressful jobs and teacher shortages will again become a major problem.
Even now we have unqualified temporaries from overseas being used as teachers in our schools. We still have teacher shortages, and the situation will get worse. On the whole, teachers have taken on more work and had their pay and conditions worsened by the latest reforms. Having shown great commitment in their attempts to make the Government changes successful, they are then stabbed in the back by the Government. Teachers suffer from the underfunding of education, but so do our children who are penalised by the Government's hypocritical approach to education.
I wish to comment next on performance-related pay. Again, the pay review body's recommendations—that only deputy heads and heads should be considered for performance-related pay—were overruled. The Secretary of State has dictatorially ignored the recommendations and designated 14 schools as performance-related pay pilot schools. Incidentally, I understand that some of those schools have asked to be withdrawn from the scheme as they feel that they have been deceived.
I strongly oppose performance-related pay in any shape or form for teachers. Performance-related pay is divisive, it de-motivates and it demoralises. Against the advice of professionals and of the review body, the Government have arbitrarily enforced their dogmatic and bigoted beliefs which will further demoralise the teaching profession. Whatever one's opinion may be about performance-related pay, it is clear that the pay review body did not see it as the answer to teachers' pay. It was not an option that the pay review body favoured, even given its recommended rise, which it admitted was
less than is needed in respect of recruitment, retention and motivation".
Contrary to what the previous Secretary of State said, a Secretary of State can impose pay settlements and working conditions for teachers which do not result from the pay review body recommendation.
Today's order proves that the Secretary of State has dictatorial power over pay levels, pay structure and conditions of service for teachers. It proves conclusively once and for all that the pay review body is a sham and no substitute for free collective bargaining and agreements. The order should be vigorously opposed.

Mr. Don Foster: I begin by declaring an interest as a consultant to both the National Union of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. Although I do not speak for them, I suspect that members of those unions and of all other teacher unions would have been surprised to hear the Minister's comments about the state of morale in the profession. I have met many teachers in the past 18 months. I assure the Minister that morale within the profession is at a low ebb.

Mr. Robin Squire: I wish to add a coda, to which the hon. Gentleman may be coming. There has been a significant sea change of opinion in the past few months, for reasons of which the whole House will be aware, with the interim report of Sir Ron Dearing. I was referring to that when I spoke about morale.

Mr. Foster: I am more than willing to acknowledge that there has been a change in attitude as a result of what Sir Ron Dearing has done. That is because Sir Ron has demonstrated the great benefits of consultation—something which the Secretary of State and the Government Front-Bench team have been unwilling to do.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Who set up the Dearing committee? What the hon. Gentleman says is absolute poppycock. [Interruption.]

Mr. Foster: These comments backwards and forwards across the Chamber are of no great benefit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the reason it was necessary to set up the Dearing review was the strife that had been created in our education service as a result of the proposals and actions of the Government and, in particular, the Secretary of State. Many people in the teaching profession still feel at a low ebb despite what Sir Ron Dearing has done.
I entirely agree with the Minister on one thing: he said that teachers deserved the "highest respect and praise". I am sure that the whole House agrees with that. It has to be said that the excellent work that we still see in our schools occurs despite the Secretary of State's and the Government's proposals, not because of them.
The order is about the pay-round proposals. The comments that were made when the proposals were first announced were very critical. I did a trawl of the newspapers. "Derisory", "a con", "abysmal", "a recipe for conflict" and "an insult" were just some of the reactions that were reported. Why were people so worried? One of the reasons, as other hon. Members have said, was that the announcement demonstrated the complete lack of independence of the review body. It is interesting to note that the Public Finance Foundation, a branch of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, pointed out that teachers had fared worse than other professions with review bodies. It concluded that the review body's work to address the problems—this is worth hearing—of low teacher morale and the need for a pay structure in line with the changing needs of the profession had been "nipped in the bud".
One of the most obvious demonstrations of the lack of independence of that pay review body is in paragraph v. of the summary of its report, which says:
Inevitably, our review has been coloured by the Government's announcement in November that public sector pay increases over the coming year should be in the range zero to 1·5 per cent.
The review had been coloured. The same paragraph refers to the body's likely constraint by the Government's policy.
As other hon. Members have mentioned, one of the major problems for teachers at present, and one of the obvious reasons for low morale, is the work load. It is interesting that before this debate we discussed education in Northern Ireland. The Minister, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), acknowledged the problems of the heavy work load for teachers. Only yesterday he was quoted in an interview in the Belfast Telegraph as referring to that very subject. He said:
Overload is a very serious problem because it is very debilitating to teachers and teaching. I would like to have a resolution to this problem… within a reasonable timescale.
I hope that, for the sake of the people teaching in Northern Ireland, he is successful.
The order will actually increase the work load for teachers in England, because even the review body


acknowledged that the implementation of its recommendations would lead, as a result of the already overstretched budgets of local education authorities, to
a deterioration in staffing levels".
That obviously has implications for the remaining staff in the profession.
The award gives the wrong signals to those working in the education service. It does nothing to restore morale or to enhance motivation. For that reason, it is especially important that the Minister makes it clear to the House tonight that neither he nor the Secretary of State has in any way pre-empted the review body's recommendations for 1994. I am sure that the whole House will wish to hear that assurance.
I hope that the Minister will also assure us that in future he will take more notice of the review body's other recommendations. Reference has already been made to the lack of acknowledgement of the recommendations about performance-related pay. Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about performance-related pay, especially as I acknowledge that teaching is a co-operative venture. It is about partnership among teachers, not competition between them.
The review body said, in effect, that one should not divert current appraisal work towards PRP, that one should not even think of going ahead before much more work had been done on developing acceptable indicators and that one should not think of introducing a scheme unless one were willing to make extra money available to fund it.
In spite of those three key warnings, the Government have gone ahead and, as we notice in paragraph 7 of the document, the Secretary of State ignored that advice and went ahead with 14 pilot schools. Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that some of those 14 schools have already dropped out, but I think that the House would like to know how many of those 14 schools have dropped out. My understanding—I look for confirmation from the Minister—is that five out of 14 schools have dropped out. [Interruption.] The Minister is saying two from a sedentary position. I am sure that the way in which he was indicating two will not be recorded.
It will be interesting to know whether the Minister agrees with the opinion that was expressed by the chairman of the governors of a school in Berkshire, who said that they had been conned into joining those trials and that
The Government well and truly stepped over the mark.
I wonder whether the Minister agrees that that is what they have done.
I also accept that the Government have given themselves—sadly, I believe—the right to ignore or amend the review body's recommendations, but if they do so in future I hope that they will consult more widely first. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the worries, for instance, about teachers for pupils with special educational needs. I wish that he had looked more closely at the advice from the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf.
I hope that the Department will recognise the difficulties that are imposed on schools by the implementation of major changes. That may seem obvious, but it is worth reflecting that the notification that was given to heads and governors to implement the changes and assimilations by 1 September last year was sent out in a letter dated 15 July. That allowed very little time to do all the necessary work. The order shows a lack of regard for the review body and for heads, teachers and governors of our schools.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is not on performance-related pay from the teachers' unions that he represents. If he is, heaven help his income.
Time and again, we hear from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) about low teacher morale or about how teachers were much better off under the last Labour Government. That is not true. One has only to look at teachers' pay between 1974 and 1979 to see that they were far more poorly paid than they are now.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was fascinated by the highly selective statistics given by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg)—I cannot see him in his place now. Like most members of the Labour party, he is behind the times. He drew his conclusions from statistics up to 1990 when the relative pay of teachers compared to non-manual workers was 105. He omitted to mention, not surprisingly, that in 1991 the relative pay was 112 and in 1992 it was 118—as compared with 106 when we took office.

Mr. Evans: That does not surprise me. I am sure that the hon. Member was burning the midnight oil trying to work out some statistics to make the Labour party's shabby little case look better.
We have seen teachers' pay rise remarkably in real terms since 1979 and, at the same time, we have seen standards in our schools improve. Far too often we look at the input in education as opposed to the output. We have seen GCSE results improve and far more of our youngsters are staying on for A-levels, either in their own school or in further and higher education. Many of them have done extremely well and have gone on to university. The number going to university has risen from one in eight to one in four and the Government are determined that, by the end of the century, we will see one in three of our youngsters going to university. That is superb.

Mr. Don Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as more and more students go into higher education—and that is worth supporting—one in eight is dropping out because of a lack of funding?

Mr. Evans: All I can say is that we are seeing more of our youngsters going on to further and higher education and benefiting from it. We want to ensure that our youngsters are taking relevant courses that will benefit them. Perhaps in too many cases our youngsters take courses that are not right for them and drop out because of that. We need to pay more attention to that.

Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman's speech so far seems to have been about comparative wage rates for teachers between now and some time in the past. Has not the hon. Gentleman realised that we are concerned because of the Government's attitude to the review body and because in three of the past four years the Government have ignored the recommendations from the pay review body? It is the breaking of the pledge that the Government made to accept the recommendations from the review body that is causing a downward trend in morale.
In the rest of his speech, will the hon. Gentleman give us fewer statistics comparing one year with another and address the real concern of Labour Members, which is that


his Government and Ministers have proved that they are not prepared to accept the recommendations of the review body? It was the Government's pledge to accept such recommendations that enabled teachers to go along with the idea in the first place.

Mr. Evans: Of course, I do not accept what the hon. Lady says about morale in our schools.
Before I became a Member of Parliament for Ribble Valley, I was a county councillor in West Glamorgan. I was the chairman of a governing body for a couple of years and a member of many other governing bodies, as was the practice in Labour-controlled county councils in those days. During those six years as a governor, I witnessed an absolute sea change when we, through Government policy, depoliticised those governing bodies. If the Opposition want to talk about low morale in the teaching profession, they need only remember when Labour councillors were sitting on the governing bodies of schools and dictating to them exactly what their policies should be. That is when there was low morale.
The mood has changed since then, because we have taken power away from the politicians on the governing bodies and given it to those to whom it belongs—the parents, teachers and the professionals in the teaching profession. We have taken it away from the politicians, and the Opposition do not like it.
The pay of teachers has increased by 57 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1993. The Minister also stated some of the amounts that teachers are currently earning. At one stage, I intervened to say that the average pay of some of our teachers is not what we would call extremely high, but, had the Opposition won the election, teachers would have been in the very sector of society that would be caught by the higher taxes that the Opposition would have introduced.
During the period that the Conservatives have been in government, we have seen the tax on teachers' pay come down remarkably, because, since 1979, the basic rate of tax has dropped from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent., and, in certain sectors, to 20 per cent. Teachers are the very people who would have seen their taxes increase if Labour had won the general election.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman speculate on what pay rise the teachers should have if the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts VAT on books? Does he agree that it should be considerable and will he promise to fight for such a rise if VAT is slapped on books?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks I will speculate about what will be in the Budget on 30 November. I will speculate about what would happen if there were a return of a Labour Government. I do not really need to speculate, because one has only to remember what the shadow Chancellor said during the general election campaign, when he made the great mistake that many people feel caused Labour to lose the general election. What did the Labour party then do? It promoted him to be its leader. That is what happens in the Labour party; it promotes failures rather than gets rid of them.
Opposition Members are concentrating on one narrow aspect of teachers' pay and incentives when they should be looking at their gamut. We have seen an increase in

standards and incentives. We want to drive standards up, and time and again that is what we are seeing in education in our schools.
We have seen the introduction of grant-maintained schools, and 1,000 schools have opted for that status. The Opposition would take the rights of the parents away from those schools and they would be trawled back into local authority control, which would be an absolute disgrace. They should listen to parents on that issue, but they will not do so.
Through the local management of schools, governing bodies now have more control over their budgets so that they can spend the money on those items that they think will be of benefit to their youngsters. When Opposition Members talk about performance-related pay and comparisons with the private sector, is not it amazing that they want the teaching profession—which we believe is doing a superb job—to have the rewards of the private sector but not the demands?

Mr. Devlin: My hon. Friend may be aware that I am the governor of a private school in my constituency which is one of the highest performing newly formed private schools in the past few years and gets a high percentage of boys into Oxford, Cambridge and other universities. Is he aware that I find it extraordinary that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggested earlier that performance-related pay is inimical to the co-operative nature of teaching children? In our school, which out-performs nearly all of the state sector, there is performance-related pay and the teachers work extremely well together. The value of the Secretary of State's work is of great benefit to the future of the teaching profession.

Mr. Evans: I can only accept everything that my hon. Friend has said on that subject. I am sure that he makes an extremely good governor who contributes well to that governing body.
The Government have seen many changes over their period in office. During the time that I was a governor of a school in my area, I saw some of those changes coming in and it is right that we are determined to continue with the process of ensuring that youngsters in our schools get the best education.
Money has been invested in the technical and vocational educational initiative to ensure that youngsters with a more vocational aspect of their education will get the sort of education that they deserve. General national vocational qualifications have been introduced alongside those initiatives to ensure that youngsters who are not academic are able to concentrate on those lessons that will be of benefit to them when they leave school.

Mr. Don Foster: I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at success of the initiatives to which he has just referred. He will be aware that those initiatives were available for pupils in all state schools. Does he agree that, in the further development of that process through the new technology initiative, it is therefore right for the Secretary of State to make the money available only for children in grant-maintained or voluntary-aided schools?

Mr. Robin Squire: There is now flexibility.

Mr. Evans: As the Minister has said, there is now flexibility and that is what we want to see in our schools.

Mr. Matthew Banks: If I might briefly take my hon. Friend back to something that he mentioned earlier, does he agree that it is of paramount importance, when discussing matters relating to conditions of service and pay, that we constantly state that under this Government teachers' pay has risen dramatically in real terms and that, no matter what Opposition Members say, teachers' pay under the last Labour Government barely rose at all?

Mr. Evans: That is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) was elected and why the Liberal Democrats lost that seat.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has just mentioned the technical and vocational educational initiative. Opposition Members should recognise that many of their colleagues in local government, especially in the Kirklees local authority, bitterly opposed the introduction of TVEI in the teeth of the support for TVEI consistently made clear by many Labour-supporting teachers and head teachers throughout the middle and late 1980s.
I was heavily involved in a number of those battles when I was the parliamentary candidate for Huddersfield. Many socialists in west Yorkshire opposed TVEI tooth and nail and continued to do so against all educational common sense.

Mr. Evans: It would not be the first time that Opposition Members have done a U-turn on a policy that was introduced by the Government and in which they now see some merit.
I shall bring my comments to a close, as many other hon. Members wish to speak. The Government are absolutely committed to the teaching profession and are proud of the work that they are doing and we will ensure that that work carries on in the future.

Mr. Stephen Byers: I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate, because, before my election in April last year, I had the pleasure of serving as chairman of the national employers' organisation for school teachers, which is the body that represents the local authority employers. Before that, I was a member of the Burnham committee which was later abolished by the Conservative Government.
I shall make one comment about the need to restore negotiating rights to the 400,000 teachers in England and Wales and I shall then make some detailed comments about the order. It must be a matter of great regret to the House that we have such a large body of workers who are unable to enjoy the basic democratic right of negotiating their own pay and conditions of service. It is a right which many in the House argued should be enjoyed in other countries when it was denied to people there. I am thinking especially of Solidarity in Poland. Many Conservative Members were keen to extol the virtues of that trade union and to give it the ability to negotiate freely with the Polish Government of the day. Many of us feel that the time has come to give teachers the right to negotiate freely with their local authority employers.

Mr. Devlin: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the Burnham machinery was successful? It was clear that, year

after year, the employers and unions agreed a pay increase that they then expected someone else—the Government —to fund. That position was clearly unsatisfactory. Either the Government had to have some role in the negotiating procedure, because they were footing the bill, or the whole machinery had to be changed. That is why the machinery was scrapped.
The value of the present system is that the Secretary of State at least has some say in the way in which the negotiations are carried out and he is doing a great deal through the order and the proposals that will come forward for next year to enable good teachers to stay in the classroom.

Mr. Byers: To say that the Secretary of State now has some say in the matter is rather an understatement. He appoints all the members of the review body. He gives them the remit under which they have to operate and, once the report has been received, he modifies it by order so that it cannot be identified as the original submission from the review body.
The Burnham committee had the benefit of, for example, the negotiators being people with practical experience who would know the practical difficulties to which certain proposals would give rise. One of the reasons why teachers had a fair deal throughout the 1980s was precisely that for seven of the 10 years pay was determined by the Burnham committee. The teachers' present difficulty is that in three of the past four years, the Government have changed the review body's recommendations, not for the better, but by reducing or delaying the amount that teachers would have got as a result of the review body's recommendations.
There is a democratic principle at stake when considering free nogotiations. There are also practical reasons why negotiations are important. There are people with expertise and with day-to-day experience who can bring those qualities to bear on the proposals that come forward.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman propose bringing back the Burnham committee? Is it not right to say that in three out of the last four years of its operation it could not agree?

Mr. Byers: I agreed with the Burnham committee's recommendations to the then Secretary of State. It is a matter of regret that the Secretary of State chose to ignore them. The Burnham made two main proposals. The first was that the size of both sides of the committee should be reduced. The second was that there should be a deadline by which the committee would have to make recommendations which it would then put to the Secretary of State. The committee would then not have had the difficulties that it experienced in the previous three to four years. Its proposals to the Secretary of State were practical. If he had looked at them rationally and less dogmatically, he would have been able to agree to them. For political reasons, the then Secretary of State decided that he wanted to remove negotiating rights from teachers. That is a matter of deep regret and that is why we are now dealing with the order.
The order does not reflect the recommendations that came from the schoolteachers' pay review body. It modifies it substantially, as the memorandum before us clearly demonstrates.
The schoolteachers' pay review body, even though it had been given a remit by the Secretary of State, proposed


an end-loaded settlement that would have cost 1·8 per cent. in a full year on the total pay bill for teachers. That was unacceptable to the Government because they had to bring it within the 1·5 per cent. public pay policy envelope. It is because of the Government's need to achieve that overriding political objective that we have some of the difficulties that are created by the order.
What is even worse, though—to add insult to injury —is that even though only 1·5 per cent. is being made available to teachers pay overall, the Government are not even funding the 1·5 per cent. increase. The Minister will be aware that the increase in the education standard spending assessment for local education authorities is only 0·25 per cent. in 1993–94, compared with the actual spend on education last year.
The Minister may live in a never-never land where actual spend does not mean much. It clearly means that it is money that was spent in the previous financial year. That, of course, is ignored by the Government because they see it as Labour local authorities committing the cardinal sin of overspending on education. The Government ignore that and are only prepared to increase the education standard spending assessment by the amount that they believe should have been spent, which is substantially less than what Labour local authorities are spending.

Mr. Robin Squire: The hon. Gentleman is taking me back to a previous role, which is always a dangerous trip to make. My memory is that the increase year on year—a legitimate comparison for the adjusted services of education—is approximately 3 per cent. If that is not so, I shall make that clear elsewhere. Against the background of inflation conditions that we had, I think that that is a reasonable settlement.

Mr. Byers: Because of his previous portfolio, I think that the Minister knows full well that that does not compare with what is happening in reality. That may be all right as far as the Treasury is concerned—we know that the Treasury dominates exactly what his Department can now do—but in terms of what is being spent in our schools, which must concern the House, there has been an increase of only 0·25 per cent. year to year as a result of the decisions that the Government have made. Financial difficulties will be experienced by local education authorities and individual schools as a result of the paltry increase that teachers will get. We should have had a reasonable and responsible increase properly funded by the Government.
On the question of structure, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that the document was not published until 15 July, which, in practice, has meant that governing bodies, which will implement many of the structural changes, have simply not had the time to put those changes in place. If we experience the same procedure next year, there will be a strong argument—I suggest this in a constructive way—for the document to be published earlier so that governing bodies in the summer term can consider the modifications to which the order will give rise.
The order allows the Secretary of State to designate individual schools to introduce performance-related pay on a pilot basis. We understand that, originally, 14 schools volunteered. Were they really volunteers or had they merely expressed an interest in a letter at some stage and

found themselves, in the full glare of publicity, described as having volunteered? Can the Minister confirm that, of those 14, five have indicated that they do not want to proceed? It would be interesting to hear the Minister say whether it is five or fewer.
When he chaired the review body, Sir Graham Day heard much evidence about PRP. Because of his industrial background, he was a man of great experience of the benefits, in certain sectors, that can come from the introduction of PRP. Sir Graham Day knew very well that it was almost impossible to introduce performance-related pay into the schools sector. That is why he wanted to proceed with caution, and why the review body was prepared to do no more than start some feasibility studies of how performance-related pay could work; it was not prepared to go any further than that, because it realised the difficulties that were involved and the need to proceed with caution. There is great concern that, by introducing the order, the Government are moving towards a system under which pilot projects can be set up through designation by the Secretary of State.
Many of us disagree fundamentally with the whole idea of performance-related pay in schools. Who is to judge? Who is it to be awarded to? Is it to be awarded to the whole school, an individual department, a group of teachers or individual teachers? Those are difficult issues, which need to be tackled sensibly and sympathetically. As I said, Sir Graham Day, a highly experienced industrialist, was not prepared to embark on pilot projects because of the difficulties that he envisaged. The order represents the triumph of political dogma over education reason.
I have questions about two specific points that arise from the order, the first of which concerns the 18-point pay spine for qualified teachers. As I told the Minister, I should be interested to hear why it is that, in his Department's own evidence, which has now been submitted to the pay review body for next year, a 35-point pay scale is recommended for qualified teachers. The reason given is that, in the Department's view, such a scale will be workable and flexible. By implication, that means that the 18-point spine proposed in the order is unworkable and inflexible. I shall be interested to hear why the Minister's own Department has made such a substantial change.
My second specific point concerning the structure changes before us relates to the windfall earnings that will come to certain individual teachers. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter. The provision affects those teachers who were in service under the old Burnham structure, which was abolished in 1987. The order states that they are to receive one spine point for each year of service, in the same way as all other teachers. But it will give a windfall gain to teachers who have had a break in service since 1987 and have not yet reached the top of the standard scale.
We are not talking about small amounts. The sums will be substantial, and the employers have calculated that, for some local education authorities, the provision will mean an additional 0·25 per cent. on the salary bill. That may not seem much to hon. Members, but it is the equivalent of 1,000 teachers, so the issue is crucial.
What does the Minister intend to do about those windfall earnings? They will be random in nature: they will turn up in individual schools—perhaps more than one teacher in a particular school will be eligible for them. What will the Minister do to help schools one or two of whose teachers experience a windfall increase as a result of


the order? Will there be additional support? How will the arrangements operate under the scheme of delegation under local management of schools, bearing in mind the fact that it is not the actual salary that is covered under the local management arrangements but the average salary for the local authority as a whole? How does the Minister intend to tackle that point?
The order represents the worst of all possible worlds. It will create financial difficulties for' individual local education authorities and schools because of the chronic underfunding of the education service by this Government. It will do nothing to raise morale among our teachers. It will not retain, recruit and motivate any of our teachers. We need an order that will reward and ensure that we keep high-quality teachers and so invest in high-quality education for our children. It is because the order fails to achieve those objectives that it should be opposed.

Mr. Win Griffiths: It is worth reminding the Minister of the point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) finished, because, in setting out the Government's stall, the Minister emphasised what he felt were the positive aspects of the award—the 18-point spine, the opportunities for extra points based on excellence and responsibility, and so on. He gave the impression that any successful school, with teachers diligently carrying out responsibilities and performing excellently in the classroom, would be able to claim up to five extra points for responsibility and up to three points for excellence. He suggested that a headmaster would recommend teachers for points because of the excellence of their performance. The truth is that everything depends on the resources that are made available through the national pay award, which percolate down to local authorities and then to schools.
There is a severe limit on any flexibility in the system. Will any head teacher have total carte blanche to reward a member of staff in exactly the way in which he or she would want? The truth is that the money is not there.
I do not want the Minister to advance well-rehearsed arguments about the history of pay increases since the year dot, but as the pay review body is likely to be in existence for some time, I should like him to consider its independence. Unfortunately, it has been rather supine in accepting the financial limits that have been placed on it by the Government, even though in previous debates Ministers and the Secretary of State made it quite clear that no financial limit would be placed on its consideration of teachers' pay. It has admitted, however, that its recommendations are less than is necessary to ensure a well-motivated profession of teachers who want to stay in schools or to attract others with good qualifications to the profession.
None of those issues has been tackled by the Minister. Is he prepared to say that the pay review body will be directed not to pay heed to any financial limit placed on it by the Government but to respond honestly with the recommendations that it believes to be necessary to ensure a well-paid and well-motivated teaching force, providing our young people with a quality education? One of the great disappointments this year has been the way in which the pay review body has meekly accepted the financial limits that the Government have placed on it.
I hope, too, that the Minister will explain clearly why even the modest recommendations of the pay review body

have not been accepted, why the special educational needs sector is limited only to teachers who are teaching with statements and exactly when primary schools will get all the allowances that were recommended by the pay review body. We look forward to the answers and hope that there will be a positive response to the needs outlined by the pay review body which were, unfortunately, rejected by the Government.

Mr. Robin Squire: This has been an enjoyable if short debate to which hon. Members from both parties have made important contributions. I am sure that they will accept that if I cannot deal with every issue raised now, I shall write to them about any outstanding matters.
I listened carefully to see whether I could learn why Labour Members think that it would be right to annul the order and create administrative chaos in schools and local education authorities which have made good progress by putting it into effect. I listened, but I confess that I have not found the answer.
A variety of reasons were advanced. I do not think that it is too much of a caricature to summarise them as follows: Labour Members object to the independent review body system; they object to the Government adjusting the recommendations so that all public sector employees were this year affected in the same way by the Government's approach to pay—in other words, they object to fair treatment; they object to the notion that good teachers might be paid more than bad; and they object to schools that have developed their own arrangements for rewarding good performance being permitted to continue to do so.
I deal now with specific questions. The background to the 1993–94 settlement was mentioned by the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), among others. The Government did not put a financial constraint on the schoolteachers pay review body, which was directed to have regard to the 0 to 1·5 per cent. overall limit. I remind the House that the pay restraint policy applied to all public sector groups without exception. The 0·35 per cent., to which the hon. Member for Bridgend referred, did not affect the salary settlement for 1993–94, but it would have affected the settlement for 1994–95. In fairness to all other public sector workers, the Secretary of State saw no reason to depart from the practice which was affecting every other public sector employee. I think that most hon. Members would agree with that.
In answer to the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Bridgend, I confirm that there is no specific financial constraint or percentage limit on pay settlements for 1994–95. We have, of course, consistently said that we shall accept the recommendations of the review bodies unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary, but the review bodies will have to be realistic about the context in which they operate, which will not be clear until after the forthcoming Budget statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) helpfully wondered about an alternative. I suspect that a number of Labour Members would like to return to what they term "collective bargaining". Many people would argue that the performance of collective bargaining in the 20 years up to the 1986 settlement, which produced only thre negotiated settlements for teachers, has done


more than almost anything else to downplay teachers' reputations in the eyes of the public. I submit that teachers are better off with the body that they now have.
As for performance-related pay, our view is that across all public services, regular and direct links should be established between a person's contribution to the standards of service provided and his or her reward. We are determined to raise standards in the public sector.
On the issue of schools dropping out, I can confirm that two have dropped out and that one further school rumoured to have dropped out is carrying on, as are all the other schools.
Time does not allow me to deal with every issue, but I shall use the balance of the time available to answer the hon. Member for Bridgend. The important comparison to bear in mind is that the Opposition presided over an unparalleled decline in teachers' salaries until 1979. They do not like being reminded of it, but it happens to be true. The average pay of schoolteachers, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Southport (Mr. Banks) reminded us—

It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [22 October]:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 237.

Division No.370]
[10.29


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Denham, John


Ainger, Nick
Dixon, Don


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Austin-Walker, John
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barnes, Harry
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Enright, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Etherington, Bill


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fisher, Mark


Benton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Dr. Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Boyce, Jimmy
Fyfe, Maria


Boyes, Roland
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Keith
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Caborn, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Illslay, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Darling, Alistair
Jamieson, David


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)





Jowell, Tessa
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Khabra, Piara S.
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prescott, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Primarolo, Dawn


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Terry
Quin, Ms Joyce


Livingstone, Ken
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Redmond, Martin


Loyden, Eddie
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCrea, Rev William
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Short, Clare


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


McMaster, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Alice
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maxton, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Stevenson, George


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stott, Roger


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wallace, James


Mudie, George
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Paul
Watson, Mike


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wise, Audrey


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Worthington, Tony


O'Hara, Edward
Wray, Jimmy


Paisley, Rev Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Pope, Greg





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Ancram, Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clappison, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Congdon, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bates, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Booth, Hartley
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Bright, Graham
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dunn, Bob


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Durant, Sir Anthony


Burns, Simon
Dykes, Hugh


Burt, Alistair
Eggar, Tim


Butler, Peter
Elletson, Harold






Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Hunter, Andrew


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Jack, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Evennett, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Faber, David
Jessel, Toby


Fabricant, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fishburn, Dudley
Key, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Kilfedder, Sir James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Forth, Eric
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Knapman, Roger


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


French, Douglas
Knox, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Gallie, Phil
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Gardiner, Sir George
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Gill, Christopher
Legg, Barry


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Leigh, Edward


Gorst, John
Lidington, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Lightbown, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Lord, Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Luff, Peter


Hague, William
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
MacKay, Andrew


Hannam, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Madel, David


Harris, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Haselhurst, Alan
Malone, Gerald


Hawkins, Nick
Mans, Keith


Hawksley, Warren
Marland, Paul


Hayes, Jerry
Marlow, Tony


Heald, Oliver
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hendry, Charles
Mates, Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Horam, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Merchant, Piers


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Milligan, Stephen


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Mills, Iain





Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Stephen, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paice, James
Thomason, Roy


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pawsey, James
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thumham, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Richards, Rod
Trend, Michael


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robathan, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Ward, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Tom
Waterson, Nigel


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whitney, Ray


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Whtttingdale, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Willetts, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Soames, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Speed, Sir Keith
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. Robert G Hughes

Question accordingly negatived.

St. Philip's Sixth Form College, Birmingham

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Ms Clare Short: I am taking the unusual step of raising the future of St. Philip's sixth form college in my constituency because I am very concerned that a popular, happy and academically successful college is being undermined by a very small group of trustees who will not listen to parents, students, staff, or mainstream Catholic opinion in Birmingham. I ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education and, through him, the Secretary of State to intervene to preserve that fine educational institution, as happened in the case of the school in Stratford in London, which was being undermined by a small faction that had taken control of the governing body of the school and was undermining the education of the children at that school.
I am very sad indeed to have to bring this matter to the attention of the House and to make this unusual request. I myself attended St. Paul's then grammar school, which was a sister school of St. Philip's. One of my brothers and many of my uncles and cousins attended St. Philip's school. Unfortunately, those who are now in control of the governing body seem not to be as wise or as concerned for Catholic education in Birmingham as their predecessors were.
St. Philip's, which was a grammar school, is now a sixth form Roman Catholic college. It is extremely popular. It has more than 900 students, and it has had to turn away students this year and in previous years. Indeed, it has turned away Catholic students. Its academic results are excellent. It recently won a prestigious academic award. It is a very happy and popular college. It is a Catholic college with a Catholic ethos. All students receive Catholic education, but within an ethos that is multicultural and shows deep respect for other world religions. The result is that the parents of students committed to other faiths are keen for their children to attend St. Philip's because there is a religious ethos and deep respect for religions at that college.
I should explain as background that Roman Catholic education in Birmingham, of which I am a product, has had to face up to the multicultural nature of our city. It used to be the case that all Catholic schools in Birmingham were all-white. As our population changed, our black populations came mainly from the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent and had very few Catholics. Schools such as St. Clare's, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which also recently won a prestigious award and at which my sister used to teach, started to be all-white in a multicultural city. Wisely and sensibly, such schools said that they would give priority to Catholic children but invite children from all faiths in the city. They would show respect to all faiths and be a beacon of high-quality Catholic education in our city. Catholic education in Birmingham has been respected for that contribution and has learnt that lesson.
Sadly and suddenly, the oratory fathers have decided to break that tradition. Because one third of the students at St. Philip's college are Catholic, the oratory fathers decided

that they must close the college. The first preference announced was to turn the college into a boys' Catholic secondary school. Obviously, that was a ridiculous proposition because we have surplus places in our secondary schools in Birmingham and the demand is for girls' schools, if there is to be any change. There is no demand for a boys' secondary school.
Having failed in that endeavour, having consulted the staff and parents, and having been opposed by everyone who was consulted, they decided, extraordinarily, to hand the college to the Anglican Church and arrange for it to be transferred to another site. That is an extremely odd decision. It is disturbing for the Catholic staff at the college who wonder whether they will be told one day that they must cease to teach in a Catholic ethos and teach in the Anglican ethos. The proposal is extraordinary—it is an argument for those concerned with Catholic education—and is causing enormous anxiety among mainstream Catholics in Birmingham.
That is not the issue that I raise in the House tonight. My concern is to secure the future of this fine academic institution and ensure that current students at the college do not have their education undermined. Because of the way in which the unrepresentative governing body is managing the college, I am concerned that the college might be undermined and might not survive to be transferred to another site under Anglican authority. It seems that those who are managing the college know nothing about education, care nothing about education, and do not have respect for academic traditions and the decent management of such a fine college.
Since the decision was made to move the college, a pattern of ugly behaviour by the governing body has developed. The governing body ceased to act democratically. It would not allow the elected staff representative to be on the governing body—it chose its own community representative, who was part of its faction. It called all sorts of confidential meetings, it would not circulate minutes, and it started to behave in a deeply undemocratic way. It also ceased to meet or consult parents and students.
Since the governing body consulted parents about the closure of the college, parents who are worried about the education of their children have written to the college—there was a massive meeting at which total opposition to the proposed closure was expressed—but have received no response or information. There is an absolute refusal to consult the staff or even keep them informed about plans.
There is an atmosphere of intimidation in the college. Staff are too frightened to speak, ask questions or continue to teach in the fine way that they have until now. There is an enormously sad and immoral, if not illegal, question about the use of public funds. Large sums of money have been spent on parts of the building that are not being used by the college. We know that the plan is to transfer the college elsewhere, so that the way in which public funds which have been raised and given to the college for the purposes of education are being used is questionable.
Most painful of all is the mistreatment of students of other faiths. Recently it was decided that Muslim students, who had been recruited as equal students in the college and who had always been treated with respect, could not pray in private in their classroom. Buildings elsewhere had to be rented at a cost to the college, and Muslim students were told that they had to go elsewhere to pray. The governors and trustees argued that that decison was made because corporate acts of worship of other faiths are not allowed


under the trust deed of the college. These are not corporate acts of worship; this is private prayer by Muslim students. That decision is ugly and prejudiced—even racist—in its consequence, and it is disturbing people in Birmingham.
My request to the Minister is simple. For the purposes of this debate, I accept the decision to transfer the college to the Anglican authorities and to another site. However, I am concerned that, if things continue as they are, the college—the staff and students—will be undermined and there will not be a college to transfer.
Part of the problem arises from the Government's reorganisation of the management of education. They devolved power to governing bodies and sometimes, as in the case of the school in Stratford in London and now St. Philip's, a small unrepresentative faction will not listen to staff, students, parents and mainstream Catholic opinion and destroys and undermines a fine educational institution.
This is where the Secretary of State and the Minister have a duty. It takes years to build an educational institution of such high quality; it cannot be created overnight. This college has been nurtured and built. Everyone is proud of it and its academic results are spectacular. It is a valuable institution in inner-city Birmingham. We need fine institutions to give our children a chance of succeeding and going on to higher education.
We need the Government's help. They thought that they were devolving power to local communities, but in this case a small faction has got control of a college and is in danger of undermining the education of current students and the future of the institution. I ask that the Secretary of State use his powers to appoint governors to the governing body and to ensure that the college is run properly and an orderly transfer takes place for the sake of existing and future students.

Ms Estelle Morris: I wish to add briefly to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). The college lies in her constituency and my constituency is some miles away. I emphasise that this problem is not just an issue for my hon. Friend's constituents; it spreads throughout the city of Birmingham.
St. Philip's is a success story. These days, when it is difficult for our children to learn in our schools, we should celebrate our successes, build on them and conserve them. It is a great sadness for all of us that one of our great success stories in terms of academic work as well as social and multiracial integration has come upon these problems. I, too, plead with the Government to take action to solve this problem, for two reasons.
First, while all this is going on, a group of young people is trying to continue and to complete their education. They have only one chance. They cannot wait for us to sort out the quagmire and introduce new rules and regulations. As my hon. Friend said, it is the Government's fault and our fault as politicians that we have allowed a structure to exist whereby this kind of abuse can take place. The onus is on the Government quickly to improve the situation before the education of more young people is jeopardised.
The second reason why we need a speedy resolution is that the problem is tainting education throughout our city and not just in the one school. Too much energy is being used to try to solve this problem when it could be better

used by Government, Members of Parliament, councillors, parents and the local city council to address some issues that we want to be addressed in Birmingham.
My only reason for intervening in the debate is to emphasise as much as I am able that this problem faces the largest education authority in the country. It does not affect just a few children and parents. We need a speedy resolution to it so that parents, teachers and pupils at St. Philip's as well as the rest of us in Birmingham can get on with what we are trying to do, which is to provide a decent standard of education for our young people.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Ladywood to speak?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, Sir.
I support everything that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) have said. Earlier this year I met more than 60 members of staff at St. Philip's college, and I can confirm that there is a climate of fear there. They are fearful about speaking out about what is happening at the college. Fear is rampant throughout the institution. It can only be dealt with by major changes in the governing body.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on her good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate. She has spoken with characteristic passion and concern about what she sees as a matter of public interest and in the interests of the students of St. Philip's college.
I fully appreciate the strength of feeling aroused by the uncertainty surrounding the future of the college. I have seen press reports that raise various issues, including those on which the hon. Lady touched tonight. I am also aware of correspondence from those with a close interest in the matter.
I should, however, make it clear that these are essentially local issues which those at the local level must work together to resolve—

Dame Jill Knight: I should perhaps explain that, until fairly recently, the college was in my constituency. I urge my hon. Friend to recognise that there are two sides to the problem.
First, the trust deed under which the college operates clearly lays down that the college exists to perpetuate and maintain the Catholic religion. I am not a Catholic, but that is what it says.
As for the allegations about Muslims, my hon. Friend should be aware that only yesterday the chairman of the governors received a letter of staunch support from the chairman of Birmingham's Muslim liaison committee:
It gives me pleasure to confirm that we are in agreement with the arrangements that have been made for the prayers of muslim pupils at the college. We further confirm that this matter is now settled between yourselves and the muslim community … We re-iterate our gratitude for your cooperation in bringing this matter to a pleasant end and satisfactory conclusion.


I ask my hon. Friend to bear those important points in mind when he comes to weigh up the rights and wrongs of the argument.

Mr. Boswell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I can readily give her the assurance that all relevant matters will be carefully weighed up.
Institutions in the further education sector are autonomous and Parliament has deliberately and properly made it difficult for Ministers to intervene in the affairs of individual colleges. I call on all the parties involved to co-operate with one another to achieve a satisfactory conclusion. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) said, uppermost in our minds must be the interests of the students involved. The Department for Education will have a role to play once the local players have put forward a proposal on the future of the college. The Department will, of course, be happy to offer advice if called upon.
I should make it clear at the outset that the governing body has the right to take decisions about the future of the college. I am aware of its decision to transfer the college to premises elsewhere in Birmingham under the Anglican authorities, and that the transfer is intended to take place by the end of August 1995. I am also aware that if the transfer cannot be accomplished, the governing body intends that the college should close. While this may be an unpopular decision in some quarters�žincluding Opposition Members—the governors are acting within their powers.
The governors, as trustees, have a duty to ensure that the aims and objectives of the college trust deed, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred, are furthered. The principal objective of the trust deed under which St. Philip's is administered is the advancement and maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion in England. The governors have taken the view that, with the number of Catholic pupils on roll at the college declining over the years, they are not meeting that objective. For that reason, they have decided to close the college. That is not to say that the governors have no responsibilities. Their actions must accord with the college's instrument and articles of government regulating the institution and they also have a duty to act reasonably.
There is no specific mechanism of closure set out in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which must be followed. The various interested parties, the oratory, the Anglican authorities and the Further Education Funding Council are actively considering how best to proceed.

Ms Short: If there is a duty to promote Catholic education, can it possibly be legal to close a college with a Catholic ethos and hand it over to the Anglican faith? One suggestion is that the Anglicans might run it on the current site. Is that legal under the trust deed?

Mr. Boswell: As I am not a lawyer, I would be reluctant to give the hon. Lady a legal opinion from the Dispatch Box. I shall refer later to what might happen in specific circumstances. If the hon. Lady is not satisfied with that, I shall be pleased to communicate with her later on the issue. She will appreciate that there are important issues of legal process and I am anxious not to give any misleading advice to the House.
Various technical difficulties need to be overcome before any transfer can proceed. Uppermost in our minds

—particularly in this context—must be the need to protect the interests of the students. It is important that they be able to complete their courses. Under the transfer option they would be able to do that, and all concerned would need to ensure that that was achieved with a minimum of disruption.
I shall explain what would happen if the proposed transfer did not take place. There is no guarantee that the transfer proposed by the governors would be possible because the process is by no means straightforward, as I believe all parties recognise. It requires those involved in any decision to work together in a co-operative way. Should the transfer not go ahead and St. Philip's closes, a decision will need to be taken as to whether there is a need for alternative provision in the city of Birmingham.
The Further Education Funding Council is under a statutory duty to ensure that there is sufficient provision of further education in that city. It would fall to that organisation to consider, in the first instance, whether there would be a need for additional or replacement further education provision in Birmingham. The Secretary of State has a statutory role in considering any proposal for the establishment of a new further education corporation. I owe it to the House to set out how that procedure might take place within the governing body's proposals.
Issues have been raised, both in the House and in other contexts, about the process so far. There have been reports, which the hon. Lady mentioned, that the governing body has spent considerable sums of money—£100,000 has been mentioned—on the refurbishment of parts of the present oratory buildings. It has been alleged that that work was carried out in the full knowledge that the college was to close. It was argued that, as a result, the refurbishment could only have been for the benefit of the governors themselves, who would use the buildings as a museum to Cardinal Newman or for some other purpose.
To respond to the hon. Lady's intervention, may I say that the property of the trust is vested in the governors in their capacity as trustees. As trustees they have a duty to ensure that at all times they act in the best interests of the trust. It is a collective responsibility and no individual could be deemed to have a personal financial interest.
I understand that the building project has been financed from funds provided by the former maintaining local education authority, Birmingham city council. It is for the city council to satisfy itself that any conditions attached to funding which it has provided are complied with. I believe that some audit process is currently under way.
On various occasions people have raised the issue of public funds which were made available to the college before it joined the FE sector. They have asked whether those funds would be recoverable in the event of closure of the college. As a voluntary-aided sixth form college, St. Philip's has received capital grant from the Department over the years.
There is no current statutory provision for assets which have been provided or enhanced by grant aid to be so recovered. Any assets released in the event of closure would be subject to the charitable trust deed under which they are held and would need to be reapplied for the purpose of the charity. In the case of St. Philip's, the object of the trust deed is the advancement of the Roman Catholic faith. The assets would need to be reapplied for this purpose.
Funds have been provided by the Further Education Funding Council since 1 April 1993. There is in place a


financial memorandum between the Further Education Funding Council and each institution in the further education sector. It places upon colleges certain duties and obligations, one of which is to ensure that funds provided by the council are spent for the purposes for which they were given. The Further Education Funding Council could require the college to make capital repayments if assets acquired or enhanced with FEFC grant were disposed of or if the college closed.
As for financial probity, St. Philip's satisfied the Further Education Funding Council's pre-incorporation scrutiny conducted by Coopers and Lybrand. That is on the same basis as the other further education colleges in Britain. In common with all colleges in the sector, St. Philip's is required to have internal and external audit procedures and in due course it will be required to produce a statement from its external auditors confirming that funds are beings used appropriately. The hon. Member may be interested to hear that the Further Education Funding Council is currently conducting a review of the college's audit procedures. However, that is as part of the council's rolling programe for further education colleges.
I turn now to claims, including those by the hon. Member for Ladywood, that the governing body has not conducted itself in a proper manner. Irregularities in the conduct of governing body meetings have been suggested. It has also been suggested that the governors have knowingly withheld information from the college staff.
I am aware that there is currently a vacancy on the governing body for a staff governor. The Department has urged the governing body to fill the vacancy as soon as possible. I should explain that St. Philip's, in common with other colleges in the sector, is also obliged to have a nominee from the local training and enterprise council on its governing body. I understand that that position is currently vacant. I gather that the training and enterprise council nominated an individual who was obliged to resign due to pressure of other commitments. It is for the training and enterprise council to nominate a replacement governor.
Claims have also been made that the governing body has not published minutes and papers relating to meetings. Under the terms of the instrument of government, governors are required to make available at the institution minutes of their meetings as soon as practicable. They are not, however, obliged to include material which they consider to be of a confidential nature. It would appear that where the governing body has not published minutes or sections of minutes, this is because it has decided that the issues covered are confidential. I assure the House that if any evidence is presented that the governing body has acted improperly, the Department will investigate it.
The hon. Member for Ladywood asked that the governing body be replaced. Certainly the Secretary of State has powers under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to replace any or all of the governors of an institution in the further education sector. He can do this only if he is satisfied that the affairs of the institution have been or are being mismanaged. Furthermore, such action can be taken only on the recommendation of the Further Education Funding Council. No such recommendation is in place. Indeed, there is no evidence of mismanagement yet. Any allegations that are made, including those sent to us in correspondence, will, of course, be thoroughly investigated by us.
I should make it clear to the House that St. Philip's is not a school like Stratford—the case to which the hon. Member for Ladywood referred. St. Philip's will be dealt with under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which I mentioned. The Secretary of State does not have a completely free hand in the appointment of governors at St. Philip's. The Act requires that, in the case of former voluntary-aided schools such as St. Philip's, colleges be conducted in accordance with their trust deeds and that a majority of governors be persons appointed to ensure that the established character of the institution be preserved. If governors were to be replaced, those requirements would need to be satisfied.
The hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred to Muslim worship. I should make it clear to the House that for denominational colleges the act of collective worship must be in a form which complies with the provisions of the college trust deed. Governors are not obliged to make provision for acts of worship which reflect the practices of other religious traditions represented in Great Britain.
I have made it clear to the House that the key question —the future of the college—is for the governing body to decide. I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's concerns. I can sympathise with all those who have a stake in the college's future, although I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that that they do not all have the same view of that future. I realise that this is an unsettling time for parents, staff and students.
If the airing of the various issues has helped—I have done my best to clarify them for the benefit of the House—the debate, even if it has not concluded the matter, for the reasons that I have given, will have served a useful purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.